2016 Democratic Thread

[bmags]

Your case would have been stronger of:

"I dont' care that they ignore Russian issues so long as they provide safe haven to US whistleblowers", but you didn't just say that.

 

You said that Russia is a better global citizen, and when you say that, you at some point need to reconcile the actual actions and motives of the countries involved.

 

Is everything Russia does terrible? No. Does Russia oppress its opposition with violence, property seizure and threats? Yes. That is true.

 

Russia's ruling class came to power from using grift to take power over former state run industries and reap the profits. As long as they supported the right russian party, that is fine. A lot of people try to investigate how some came to be in power. They don't get far.

 

So it can't be that you care about "global citizenry", you only care about US citizens.

 

And you know what sucks about that? Turns out it's really hard to create change in democracy. It requires working institutions and convincing people.

 

You probably feel like US gov't is some oppressive top down scheme. But the reality that's hard to face is Snowden dumped all of that information and people don't really care.

 

They employ their gov't to protect them and don't care that their data is being tracked. They don't care about drones. They don't care about other governments.

 

It takes a lot of work to convince people that the effects to try and control small amounts of risk is not worth it, and causing worse issues and creates the potential for far worse.

 

But a lot of people in this thread do work to elect and make those arguments to people to make it better. I think that's the better route, I think you think that's a route for shills.

 

But , I am pretty certain that hoping for a foreign government to interfere with your government to punish the people in charge for being so corrupt is not going to end up with the outcomes you envisioned.

 

2 things i've learned from following politics and traveling to other countries:

1. People assume the opposite of bad is good, but most of the time the opposite of bad is worse

2. Corruption in the US compared to most other countries is very small.

 

And a second point, considering your pointed criticisms of others:

- You complain about strangesox putting articles to vox, but you very rarely are capable of backing up your claims. Including one time accusing us of not being familiar with the most famous case of the wikileaks DNC drop that you yourself turned out not to be familiiar with.

 

You are free to post all of the Michael Hastings conspiracies you want. Just don't be surprised if you get push back.

[bmags]

can you expand on the dead Obama critics thing?

 

Michael Hastings is going to come up.

[bmags]

Alright, I think I get it now.

 

Rabbit - I misunderstood you saying that Russia was being more noble in the case of Assange/Wikileaks NOT transparency globally. That was what I responded to.

[bmags]

I hate seeing hastings and breitbart in the same sentence. Hastings was an actual journalist who actually rattled leadership. Breitbart was a charlatan. It should be noted that hastings last reporting was on Bagdahl.

[bmags]

Considering SS had the same response, the misunderstanding is probably on me disseminating my opinion as opposed to you two interpreting it.

 

I get it now, and I think that is a defensible position.

[bmags]

I generally support Snowden as I think the United States should make an explicit decision to support those measures. I'd prefer they explicitly restrict them, but it seems like that is a battle to be fought.

 

I support Greenwald as a journalist but he can be hysterical. Of the work of foreign policy journalists I've always favored Spencer Ackerman and Juan Cole. But I trust that Greenwald will perform due diligence with information.

 

That is my complaint (along with anti-semitism) of Assange. He doesn't appear to understand what he releases.

[StrangeSox]

I generally support Snowden as I think the United States should make an explicit decision to support those measures. I'd prefer they explicitly restrict them, but it seems like that is a battle to be fought.

 

I support Greenwald as a journalist but he can be hysterical. Of the work of foreign policy journalists I've always favored Spencer Ackerman and Juan Cole. But I trust that Greenwald will perform due diligence with information.

 

That is my complaint (along with anti-semitism) of Assange. He doesn't appear to understand what he releases.

 

That's what I was trying to express when I brought up Greenwald earlier. His political conclusions are crap imo and his argumentative style leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't think that devalues the work he's done or his importance re: Snowden. And as far as Snowden goes, he confirmed a lot of suspicions people had about the NSA and uncovered new information as well at risk to his own life and well-being.

 

I think Assange is in a different category because even if it started out as a noble project, it's pretty clearly lost its way over the years and is more harmful than anything these days. I don't say that because of the DNC leaks, which actually have had only a good result in finally getting DWS out, but because of everything else--the Russian stoogism, the anti-semitism, the uncurrated leak of innocent peoples' information including underage rape victims and entire political parties, routinely overhyping what they have or just simply not understanding it, refusing to address claims that they sometimes just function as a clearing house for government intel dumps. You don't need to be buying any sort of government line (has the US government even said anything about WL since Collateral Murder?) to find Assange/WL to be pretty slimy. There are better people doing better, more responsible

[bmags]

I didn't put them in the same sentence on person. Hastings was perhaps the last real investigative journalist and his work made me interested in politics. I was a huge fan. I've see/heard most all of his interviews. He used to make jokes that he'd never kill himself and if he went missing it was probably nefarious. To your point, Hastings was the first reporter to ever report on Bergdahl.

 

Breitbart was more personality than journalist. Not in the same realm of Hastings but the circumstances around his death understandably led to conspiracy theories.

 

I know, I just wanted to make case for Hastings. His body of work could actually be threatening to US gov't. Breitbart just ruined innocent peoples lives, anything to hurt the optics of the democratic party.

[StrangeSox]

By the way here is more insanity on the trump foundation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how...db62_story.html

 

Fahrenholdt has been doing pretty difficult but classic journalistic legwork.

 

Very interesting stuff here:

First, he stopped giving his own money.

 

His contribution shrank to $35,000 in 2007.

 

Then to $30,000 in 2008.

 

Then to $0.

 

At the same time, Trump’s foundation began to fill with money from other people.

 

But in many other cases, his biggest donors have not wanted to say why they gave their own money, when Trump was giving none of his.

 

“I don’t have time for this. Thank you,” said Richard Ebers, a ticket broker in New York City who has given the Trump Foundation $1.9 million since 2011.

 

“No. No. No. I’m not going to comment on anything. I’m not answering any of your questions,” said John Stark, the chief executive of a carpet company that has donated $64,000 over the years.

 

Vince and Linda McMahon declined to comment.

 

ha

David FahrentholdVerified account

‏@Fahrenthold

Just sent this to spokespeople for @realDonaldTrump and @mike_pence. Will let you know what I hear.

 

Trump’s campaign says he’s given ‘tens of millions’ to charity, but offers no details and no proof

Edited September 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Quin]

HRC's VP Kaine: "Hillary's energy on the campaign staggers me."

 

Looks like it staggers her as well.

 

C'mon Kaine. Don't tee up like that.

[StrangeSox]

should have gone with "sweeps me off my feet" for maximum effect

[StrangeSox]

SCORCHING hot take from the NC GOP in reaction to the NCAA pulling out all tournament games from the state:

 

https://twitter.com/BobbyBigWheel/status/77...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

NC has been slowly turning blue thanks to the tech triangle and an influx of younger people. The GOP party there went head-over-heels for Tea Party types over the past few years, and now they're facing a huge wave of backlash for nonsense like HB2 and other movement conservative causes.

[greg775]

SCORCHING hot take from the NC GOP in reaction to the NCAA pulling out all tournament games from the state:

 

https://twitter.com/BobbyBigWheel/status/77...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

NC has been slowly turning blue thanks to the tech triangle and an influx of younger people. The GOP party there went head-over-heels for Tea Party types over the past few years, and now they're facing a huge wave of backlash for nonsense like HB2 and other movement conservative causes.

These states like NC and Kansas have government officials that don't represent the people. Instead of lamenting ALL the money lost because of the NCAA pulling 7 events from the state, there's a statement like that?? The government officials simply don't care. We're talking a lot of money lost. Hotels, restaurants, stores, Tshirts, vendors, whatever. And the government doesn't give a s***. They'd rather issue some ridiculous statement ripping the NCAA. How bout representing the people, government officials?

 

That said, I do have mixed emotions about the law in question. I mean is NC simply wanting males to go to male bathrooms and females to go to female bathrooms? I am in favor of that.

[lostfan]

Your case would have been stronger of:

"I dont' care that they ignore Russian issues so long as they provide safe haven to US whistleblowers", but you didn't just say that.

 

You said that Russia is a better global citizen, and when you say that, you at some point need to reconcile the actual actions and motives of the countries involved.

 

Is everything Russia does terrible? No. Does Russia oppress its opposition with violence, property seizure and threats? Yes. That is true.

 

Russia's ruling class came to power from using grift to take power over former state run industries and reap the profits. As long as they supported the right russian party, that is fine. A lot of people try to investigate how some came to be in power. They don't get far.

 

So it can't be that you care about "global citizenry", you only care about US citizens.

 

And you know what sucks about that? Turns out it's really hard to create change in democracy. It requires working institutions and convincing people.

 

You probably feel like US gov't is some oppressive top down scheme. But the reality that's hard to face is Snowden dumped all of that information and people don't really care.

 

They employ their gov't to protect them and don't care that their data is being tracked. They don't care about drones. They don't care about other governments.

 

It takes a lot of work to convince people that the effects to try and control small amounts of risk is not worth it, and causing worse issues and creates the potential for far worse.

 

But a lot of people in this thread do work to elect and make those arguments to people to make it better. I think that's the better route, I think you think that's a route for shills.

 

But , I am pretty certain that hoping for a foreign government to interfere with your government to punish the people in charge for being so corrupt is not going to end up with the outcomes you envisioned.

 

2 things i've learned from following politics and traveling to other countries:

1. People assume the opposite of bad is good, but most of the time the opposite of bad is worse

2. Corruption in the US compared to most other countries is very small.

 

And a second point, considering your pointed criticisms of others:

- You complain about strangesox putting articles to vox, but you very rarely are capable of backing up your claims. Including one time accusing us of not being familiar with the most famous case of the wikileaks DNC drop that you yourself turned out not to be familiiar with.

 

You are free to post all of the Michael Hastings conspiracies you want. Just don't be surprised if you get push back.

That's why I didn't really care much about the DNC email leak, aside from the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of people discussing it talked about what they heard people saying about them rather than actually reading them. People think that was evidence of corruption, that was nothing. Mexico has honest to god election fraud. What just happened in Brazil is unheard of here. To the extent that "corrupt" things happen here, it's usually legit, because some politician (or lobbyist or both) convinced people it should be legal, or shouldn't be changed from the way it is. That's not on the government, that's on the public.

[lostfan]

which bathroom should North Carolina have this trans woman use? Seems fairly obvious to me and probably most others, apparently not so much to the NC GOP.

[StrangeSox]

South Park actually did a decent job on this two years ago:

 

]Anyone who has a problem sharing a bathroom with people who might be transgender will have to use the special designated bathroom designed to keep them away from the normal people who don't care.

[StrangeSox]

Ta-Nehisi Coates on the "deplorables" comment and the reactions to it

Hillary Clinton made a claim—half of Donald Trump’s supporters are motivated by some form of bigotry. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it,” she said. “And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.” Clinton went on to claim that there is another half—people disappointed in the government and economy who are desperate for change. The second part of this claim received very little attention, simply because much of media could not make its way past the first half. The resultant uproar challenges the idea that Breitbart lost.

 

Indeed, what Breitbart understood, what his spiritual heir Donald Trump has banked on, what Hillary Clinton’s recent pillorying has clarified, is that white grievance, no matter how ill-founded, can never be humiliating nor disqualifying. On the contrary, it is a right to be respected at every level of American society from the beer-hall to the penthouse to the newsroom.

 

[…]

 

The media’s criticism of Clinton’s claim has been matched in vehemence only by their allergy to exploring it. “Candidates should not be sociologists,” glibly asserted David Brooks on Meet The Press. I’m not sure why not, but certainly journalists who broadcast their opinions to the nation should have to evince something more than a superficial curiosity. It is easy enough to look into Clinton’s claim and verify it or falsify it. The numbers are all around us. And the story need not end there. A curious journalist might ask what those numbers mean, or even push further, and ask what it means that the ranks of the Democratic Party are not totally free of their own deplorables.

 

Instead what followed was not journalism but, as Jamelle Bouie accurately dubbed it, “theater criticism.” Fournier and Blake’s revulsion at the thought that some 20 percent of the country, in some fashion, fit into that basket is illustrative. Neither made any apparent attempt to investigate the claim. No polling data appears in either piece and no reasons are given for why the estimate is untrue. It simply can’t be true—even if the data says that it actually is.

 

To understand how truly bizarre this method of opining is, consider the following: Had polling showed that relatively few Trump supporters believe black people are lazy and criminally-inclined, if only a tiny minority of Trump supporters believed that Muslims should be banned from the country, if birtherism carried no real weight among them, would journalists decline to point this out as they excoriated her? Of course not. But the case against Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” is a triumph of style over substance, of clamorous white grievance over knowable facts.

 

This is what Andrew Breitbart, and his progeny, ultimately understood. What Shirley Sherrod did or did not do really didn’t matter. White racial grievance enjoys automatic credibility, and even when disproven, it is never disqualifying of its bearers. It is very difficult to imagine, for instance, a 9/11 truther, who happened to be black, becoming even a governor. And yet we live in an era in which the country’s leading birther might well be president. This fact certainly horrifies some of the same journalists who attacked Clinton this weekend. But what they have yet to come to grips with is that Donald Trump is a democratic phenomenon, and that there are actual people—not trolls under a bridge—whom he, and his prejudices against Latinos, Muslims, and blacks, represent.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I do agree with the NC GOP lady re: her comment on Baylor. If you're willing to remove your tournaments from the state, why not remove Baylor (or other schools) from competition?

[bmags]

I do agree with the NC GOP lady re: her comment on Baylor. If you're willing to remove your tournaments from the state, why not remove Baylor (or other schools) from competition?

 

Right, the thing about the NCAA is it is too morally corrupt to ever make moral stances, but, they do respond to money. I think this is a sign that hosting there would take a bigger hit due to PR than having things hosted there. Then throw in NCAA moral outrage.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, the thing about the NCAA is it is too morally corrupt to ever make moral stances, but, they do respond to money. I think this is a sign that hosting there would take a bigger hit due to PR than having things hosted there. Then throw in NCAA moral outrage.

 

I have a hard time believing that keeping those tournament games would have cost the NCAA money. People aren't going to stop going to North Carolina or Duke games because of a law that doesn't affect 99.9% of the population.

Edited September 13, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[caulfield12]

Sponsors pulling money, boycotts threatened, etc.

[bmags]

I have a hard time believing that keeping those tournament games would have cost the NCAA money. People aren't going to stop going to North Carolina or Duke games because of a law that doesn't affect 99.9% of the population.

 

As caulfield mentions, you aren't thinking of TV. They need CBS to be profitable to get huge deals in future. It's easy choice for them to make, plenty of states have stadiums.

[bmags]

FYI, posted in financail thread but just some incredibly great news from the census report today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/business...-2015.html?_r=0

 

2015 was a great year for people. Incomes up, poverty down, inequality down.

[Jenksismyhero]

As caulfield mentions, you aren't thinking of TV. They need CBS to be profitable to get huge deals in future. It's easy choice for them to make, plenty of states have stadiums.

 

0.0% chance companies like State Farm or Coke or whatever are going to pull ads for the NCAA tournament because the NCAA hosts one regional final or semi final or whatever somewhere in North Carolina where two of the top teams in the sport play. Zero chance.

 

I agree that it was an easy decision to make because they can find another site to host the tournaments. This is the NCAA riding the PR train, that's all.

[Balta1701]

0.0% chance companies like State Farm or Coke or whatever are going to pull ads for the NCAA tournament because the NCAA hosts one regional final or semi final or whatever somewhere in North Carolina where two of the top teams in the sport play. Zero chance.

 

I agree that it was an easy decision to make because they can find another site to host the tournaments. This is the NCAA riding the PR train, that's all.

So, standing up to bigotry = riding the PR train.

 

Good. I wish more people would ride that train.