Is Trump really gonna get there ?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    155
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    He's basically another troll who figured out that if you can paint complex issues with a simple brush, you can really make a mint preaching to the converted. Right now, his cause is equating the use of alternate gender pronouns with tyranny. He's purposely divisive, not so much to get to some unvarnished truth, but because it sells books and packs auditoriums. A great rundown of the man (sure, it's the Toronto Star, often painted as a Canadian Pravda, but Bernard Schiff was a colleague and friend of his, and is best suited to shed light on the man and why he's so embraced up here); https://www.thestar.com/opinion/201...gest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html
     
    Randy likes this.
  2. Adam Of Angels

    Adam Of Angels The GAS Man

    Messages:
    8,771
    Likes Received:
    744
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Location:
    Mount Pleasant, PA
    Best suited to shed light because he knew him? You’ve never had drama with people you were close with or found difficulty in previously amicable relationships? Peterson’s primary cause has nothing to do with gender pronouns, and even when that was the matter shining a light on him, his point of contention was compelled speech (which absolutely everybody should take issue with, no exception) and not an expansion of rights.

    His entire philosophy is built on the idea that the responsible individual, free from group identity, is the single greatest idea to emerge in society, and is always VERY carefully and painstakingly defending his positions. Every one of the hit pieces about him (that I’ve read) have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to understand what he’s actually saying, which isn’t much of a surprise, as a lot of what he says can be difficult to parse out. The NYT article accused him of attempting to undermine the left’s fight for equality (despite him constantly advocating equality of opportunity and the disolving of ideas about group identity) and endorsing of male dominance (again, he’s explicitly against group identity), and just mischaracterizes him entirely. I haven’t talked to anybody who’s listened to Peterson with an open mind for an hour or more that has said anything less favorable than “I’m not hearing anything unreasonable here.”

    I’ve been a fan of his work for the last year and half or so, and I definitely lean left, so when I hear this sort of criticism of him, I have to assume that people aren’t willing to pay attention or there is something more sinister going on. Is it possible that this NYT journalist has just done a poor job with a handful of misconceptions? Sure, but will I be skeptical of their publications in the future? Absolutely. This nonsense is warping society.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
    coupe89 likes this.
  3. Adam Of Angels

    Adam Of Angels The GAS Man

    Messages:
    8,771
    Likes Received:
    744
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Location:
    Mount Pleasant, PA
    To be sure, I’m only bringing this up because it calls some corner of the media into question. We need more thinkers and fewer idealogues and character assassinations.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
    coupe89 likes this.
  4. Flappydoodle

    Flappydoodle SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    248
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Your laughter sure showed me!

    See below

    See below

    You are right - it was WaPo, not CNN. Sorry about that. Like I said, I was recalling off the top of my head.

    There's a nice summary of what *actually* happened in this link. It was INSANELY overblown:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31...-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/

    (and FWIW, Glen Greenwald is an open left winger, absolutely not a defender of Trump etc)

    And yes, as I said, I think it's fine that outlets make mistakes. But those mistakes always seem to align with the general narrative. Fox never accidentally reported something false but positive about Obama either. The problem is, when WaPo writes about it, it circulates through the other major outlets who write "Russia hacked the power grid, according to a report by Washington Post", and then that circulates down through twitter blah blah blah.

    Another here:

    https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28...ry-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

    Even at CNN, I seem to recall that Zucker seriously restricted reporting about the Russia investigation because their reporters were basically writing too much unverified shit.

    And again, Fox does exactly the same - gladly repeating unverified things that agree with their narrative.

    All media panders and caters to their target audience though. Maddow and that British guy don't spend much time objectively reporting the good things which Trump has accomplished - nor would/should we expect them to do so.

    (Sidenote: The DNC staffer WAS murdered. It's just not known who actually did it, or why. I also remember reading a long post of "evidence" from a group of ex-intel services/NSA guys who doubted the official version of a remote hack. Not sure if that ever panned out as true or not, since I don't understand the technical parts of it. Finally - that was the DNC emails, not the "Hillary" emails (by which, I presume you mean John Podesta's emails, which were due to him falling victim to a simple phishing scam. The only Hillary emails we have seen are the ones which have been officially released by the FBI.)

    Fox, I believe, gives a very large amount of independence to their commentators (which are also separate from "news"). That guy, Breir (?) pretty much hates Trump. O'Reilly hated him too. Hannity is obviously totally nuts... but so is Rachel Maddow :p

    Of course that's his aim! But it's exactly what, for example, Hillary and others said when right wing media was going nuts about her being investigated for her own problems. It was brushed off as a "vast right wing conspiracy". It's politics 101 to try and discredit your opponents, their allies, and their message. The Podesta emails showed tons of journalists happily working together with her campaign to help promote her viewpoints, give her early polling information etc. There's your left wing conspiracy too. If she had won, those cozy relationships would have continued and the supportive media would have been pumping out all good news while Fox endlessly criticised and made up conspiracy theories about her going to jail for murder.

    Well... that kinda depends on your definition of "evidence". Until Mueller officially accuses him of something, he can/will keep saying that.

    Again, I'd really just say that this is politics 101 - deny deny deny, pour doubt onto criticisms. It's what everybody does when they're being investigated. Weinstein is saying there is no evidence he raped anybody. Morgan Freeman is denying everything. Sorry to bring her up yet again, but Hillary "did not recall" things when questioned, told many obvious lies, and also brushed away all evidence of her "matter" during the time that the FBI was investigating her. And the congressional investigations which are still going on right now, she has called them partisan and politically motivated. That's the stage we are still at with the Trump investigation right now until Mueller either accuses him or clears him.

    In summary, all politicians are full of shit. Personally, I'd hoped Trump might be a breath of fresh air. He is in some ways, but he's much worse in other ways too.

    It's a problem, but it's nothing particularly unusual in politics, or in most walks of life. I think Trump just does it in a more offensive, more obvious way which is what upsets people. It is especially upsetting the more traditional "journalist" types who have left wing type degrees from left wing atmosphere universities and work in left wing DC or NYC, absolutely surrounded by likeminded people. Then Trump won and now they have this fat, loud, swearing man as president being openly hostile towards them, and they have absolutely no idea how to react.

    The problem, IMO, is the overall culture of the media. They've been driven to this by the competition for ratings, for exclusives and to be first, and the need to fill 24 hours with something. That's why CNN seriously sat and discussed the number of diet cokes, reported what people are tweeting about Melania conspiracy theories etc. It's happening everywhere - with guitar reviews on youtube where they're desperately trying to fill 10 minutes.

    Then you add in social media, all the paid content promotion, the organised shilling by political parties, the party propaganda dressed up as "news" (Media Matters on the left, Gateway Pundit on the right), the opinion dressed up as "news", the interference from intel agencies (foreign and domestic)... it makes a perfect storm of bullshit that totally transcends party boundaries.

    Final note- I've actually been much happier since taking a step back from all of this. I'm not American. 95% of this doesn't affect me. Hell, most probably doesn't even affect most Americans either. Life goes on. Not really worth being all upset about things.
     
  5. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,743
    Likes Received:
    2,669
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Yeah, the Washington Post article was a big part of the hysteria going around at that time.

    Yeah, it was better when the news was a half hour long. Even then, though, you'd hear an article about how shopping carts are killing people by spreading so many germs, then they'd break for commercial and the first commercial they'd show would be for Clorox disinfecting wipes. In reality, a logical person would deduce that even if the germs from the shopping cart killed someone, no one would have known where the germs came from, so the report was all bullshit anyway, just carefully orchestrated to get sponsors to pay more money to the network.

    But we are digressing...

    I had hoped so, too, but I had no expectations of such. I actually don't see why people thought it'd be a good idea to have him in charge of the government. It's a terrible idea. But here we are.
     
  6. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,053
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    First, you're correct, I misspoke and I meant the DNC emails. That doesn't really change my argument. You're sort of skirting around the issue here, which is primarily when the "left wing" media reports something that turns out to be wrong, 1) they're relying on credibly-sourced information and at worst get the details wrong - for example, that VT russian hacking story bostjan mentioned - and 2) when presented with evidence to the contrary they issue a correction. The right wing media, though, while you still see that from fairly credible right-of-center sources like the Wall Street Journal, you've also got outlets like Fox and Infowars that have zero problems just straight-up making shit up.

    I'm a Merriam Webster man, personally:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

    Contrast that with proof:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

    We have evidence of collusion. We do not yet have proof of collusion, proof being "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact," at least that's been publicly released, and whether or not we have a formal accusation from Mueller actually has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence and potentially proof actually exists - for example, I'd say we're at a point where it's fairly probable that the evidence that Trump tried to obstruct justice by firing Comey meets the standard of proof, but as of yet Mueller has not charged Trump with obstruction of justice, and, IMO, if that's what this investigation ultimately comes down to I suspect Trump is more likely to be an un-named co-conspirator than a defendant simply because trying to indict a sitting president is likely to trigger a constitutional crisis, and I don't think the GOP would allow Trump to be impeached even given clear proof of obstruction of justice, unless there was ALSO clear proof of treason.
     
  7. Unleash The Fury

    Unleash The Fury SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    194
    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Location:
    CT, USA
  8. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,743
    Likes Received:
    2,669
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I guess the left doesn't really see it that way at all.

    Here's a step back to look at the bigger picture.

    The allegation is that Trump colluded with Russian officials to beat HRC in the election. Many many pages ago, I was in disbelief of that, and also questioned why it'd really matter anyway. If Trump played a part in the leaks of emails that proved HRC had done some shady shit, wouldn't that make him a sort of whistle-blower?

    Well, I think the problem for a lot of people is intent. If Trump wanted to expose HRC as corrupt or catch her in a lie and he had nothing to gain, I think he could have been a hero, but his behaviour since doing it and the attempts to cover it up and make the investigation go away by firing the people in charge of investigating him, he's only contributed even sketchier shit than even what he was exposing HRC for in the first place.

    So, from an ethical perspective, Trumps actions surrounding this stuff is pretty reprehensible, but what about legality? Well, lying to federal agents is illegal, and obstructing a federal investigation is illegal. Is it illegal to the point where removal from office would be an option? I guess we might or might not find out.

    I'm not a fan of Trump by any stretch. But I am a fan of justice. If Trump had taken a more righteous course of action since the election, I would have been willing to get behind him, but this whole thing is just a mess now, with every party involved either exaggerating the facts, lying about the facts, or just moving painfully slow gathering evidence. Mueller and his team needs to wrap this up.
     
  9. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,345
    Likes Received:
    172
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
  10. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    155
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    So as far as I've known, despite some small differences in opinion and policy over the years, Canada has been pretty much the United States' staunchest ally. What reason could that man possibly have to target us? He talks about trade like it's sports, everything is winning and losing, what is wrong with this man? There's no such thing as collective benefit that genuinely enriches all parties? Forget the soap opera stuff, celebrity nonsense and such, this man is a genuine menace to the world at large. For those that support him, why? I mean, seriously. Why? How is this going to benefit anybody?
     
  11. Unleash The Fury

    Unleash The Fury SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    194
    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Location:
    CT, USA
  12. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    "MOTEL 6 FOR TERRORIST." -- sounds like even the memes are coming from Russia now.
     
    Explorer, StevenC, JSanta and 7 others like this.
  13. thraxil

    thraxil cylon

    Messages:
    941
    Likes Received:
    306
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    London
    Well, infighting and trade wars between the US, Canada, and the rest of western Europe benefits Russia...
     
    JoshuaVonFlash and Randy like this.
  14. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,053
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    As does the fact that Trump, a man under investigation for colluding with Russia and potentially being compromised by Russian intelligence, opened a G7 meeting by proposing Russia be readmitted and that the G7 become the G8 again. It was, of course, voted down.

    Other than that, basically what bostjan said. I think Unleash the Fury is, unwittingly or otherwise, downplaying just how much the narrative has shifted since Trump's win.

    In the early days of the investigation, I too didn't really expect it to go anywhere. I figured the liklihood of actual evidence emerging was too low, and while I certainly wanted to believe that there was Russian interference in the election that tipped the needle, I didn't have any illusions about the fact that what I wanted to believe had very little to do with what was actually likely. I figured this would go down like the House investigation, minus all the blatant partisanship that shut it down.

    Since then, we've learned...

    • Russian linked groups invested heavily in online advertising, and managed to get Russian propaganda in front of something like a third to a half of the electorate.
    • When individuals purporting to be Russian agents approached Trump Jr offering damaging intel on Clinton, just before Trump started talking about the DNC emails, they enthusiastically accepted a meeting.
    • We have strong evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, have found no evidence they attempted to hack the RNC, and we have strong evidence they attempted to, and in some cases penetrated, US election infastructure, though thankfully none that they were able to manipulate the outcome directly.
    • Senior Trump campaign staff had illegal business dealings with politically connected Russian nationals, and were likely themselves compromised at the time of the campaign.
    • The first the CIA heard of the DNC email hack was when a relatively high ranking Trump staffer drunkenly mentioned them to an Australian intelligence officer, who immediately escalated it to the US because there was no plausible above-the-law reason for him to be aware of that. Over and above that, we have email evidence that senior staff encoraged Popadoupalous to pursue the contact being offered.
    • Senior campaign and transition staff have been indicted for lying about previous contacts with Russia, and one of which, Flynn, had to resign, while another, Sessions, had to recuse himself from the investigation. A third, Manafort, has now been indicted for tampering with witnesses, in addition to his prior money laundering indictments.
    • Trump himself has taken clear, concrete steps to shut down the investigation - he ordered Sessions to reverse his recusal and nearly fired him for it, he DID fire Comey and later admitted he did so because of the "Russia thing," he's threatened to fire Mueller, and has actually ordered it done on at least one occasion (and only backed down when his lawyer threatened to quit if he went ahead with it), a close supporter succeeded in shutting down the House investigation, and he has begun arguing (on tenuous legal grounds, but that's largely beside the point) that he's constitutionally entitled to shut down the investigation if he wants to, as well as pardon himself, which is hardly evidence of wrongdoing, but doesn't exactly scream innocence.

    Am I missing anything? What seemed like a longshot in November of 2016 has evolved into a situation where we have clear evidence that Russia had infiltrated the Trump campaign, we have clear evidence that the campaign at least TRIED to collude with Russia, we have fairly clear evidence of obstruction of justice, we have clear evidence of significant financial involvement of Russia in the election (including very likely funneling significant amounts of money through the NRA and quite possibly the RNC as well). This is only what we know publicly, Mueller has kept his cards pretty close to his chest so god knows what else we have, and likely will be maintaining that at LEAST through the midterms, if there's any way he can.

    I mean, given a neutral Congress, impeachment would certainly be part of the conversation right now, simply on what we already know (and, likely, the mess Trump is making of the Western alliance). If you're a Trump supporter and you're NOT worried about how this investigation has begun to gain steam, then you haven't been paying attention.
     
    Randy, JoshuaVonFlash and JSanta like this.
  15. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,053
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Good catch - no way is that the work of someone whose native language is English. :lol:
     
  16. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,743
    Likes Received:
    2,669
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../?utm_term=.6ee3aaa8086e#annotations:14771091

    So........ The NK deal is that they will say that they're going to de-nuclear-ize. Keep in mind that this is the nation that sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and then raised a huge figurative middle finger to everyone by totally persuing nuclear weapons afterward.

    There's no language there to push anything into effect. Oh well, I guess we all should have seen this coming. Ho hum.

    Trump, for not being a politician, sure likes these politician-like moves. Avoiding the question asked in interviews and press conferences by talking about how great he is instead of addressing anything, meeting with foreign powers and not actually signing anything of merit, pushing the blame for failures onto other people... In some ways Trump hasn't been that bad, but in other ways, he's been worse than the people he's criticized for the reasons which he criticized them...
     
  17. Unleash The Fury

    Unleash The Fury SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    194
    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Location:
    CT, USA
    These are all weapons of mass distraction.
     
  18. spudmunkey

    spudmunkey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    299
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Location:
    Near San Francisco
    Iran deal: Has specific, measureable and enforceable rules and punishments for breaking said deal = "one of the worst deals I've ever seen"

    NK "deal": We'll say we'll do again what we did 3 times before. Smile for the camera! "Great success for america!"
     
    groverj3, Dcm81, Randy and 3 others like this.
  19. mongey

    mongey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    250
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    the gong - Australia
    so a moron egomaniac and a murderous dictator sit down for a chat and the world thinks its a good thing. . we are all seriously fucked
     
  20. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    155
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    It really is only the checks and balances of the American system that keep those descriptions from being completely interchangeable.

    It's no curiosity to me that it's the very civic restrains that check and prevent unlimited power that seem to be targets of this White House and it's ardent supporters.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018 at 6:47 AM

Share This Page