Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 2/17/2018 at 4:19 AM, Sally Vingoe said:

I don't want him to rush it, it needs to be as airtight a case as it can possibly be given the state of america at the moment

 

i'm just bad at waiting

I hope it takes a lot of the republican party down with it

i hope the NRA gets some shade thrown at them.  $30million in russian money donated to their cause... pretty sure there's some money laundering in all this that will hopefully get outed clearly. 

it'd also be lovely if it turned out russian campaign contributions were hidden through the use of a super pac

those things need to die

  On 2/17/2018 at 4:25 AM, Sally Vingoe said:

it'd also be lovely if it turned out russian campaign contributions were hidden through the use of a super pac

those things need to die

seems like that's probably gonna be true.  i mean.. you can do anything w/superpac money. surprised stormy mcdaniels didn't get paid off through a pooperpac. 

  On 2/17/2018 at 4:21 AM, ignatius said:

 

  On 2/17/2018 at 4:19 AM, Sally Vingoe said:

I don't want him to rush it, it needs to be as airtight a case as it can possibly be given the state of america at the moment

 

i'm just bad at waiting

I hope it takes a lot of the republican party down with it

i hope the NRA gets some shade thrown at them.  $30million in russian money donated to their cause... pretty sure there's some money laundering in all this that will hopefully get outed clearly. 

"Laundering" money with a squeaky clean cause like deregulating murder weapons... God Bless America

  On 2/17/2018 at 4:19 AM, Sally Vingoe said:

 

i'm just bad at waiting

same

As with all things in life; good, solid work takes time. Mueller's investigation is no exception.

Grasping at straws, Mueller indicts employees of a Russian troll farm for buying online ads that included cute puppy and Superman Jesus images. According to Facebook, 56% of the ads appeared after the 2016 election and 25% were seen by no one. Another farce propels Cold War 2.0

Via Max Blumenthal

Apparently Max Blumenthal is an idiot. Without knowledge of the backstory: 44% appeared during the election, and 75% were seen. Or in other words, these statistics mean little. Is he really that stupid? Or does he have some interests?

So this is based on an analysis on facebook ads done by facebook. A company whose business model is making money with ads. Or in other words: it's better to have some independent party analyse what happened. I'm surprised people just assume facebook is the right party to take for granted.

Instead of these percentages -which again mean little - people need to keep their eyes on the ball: a company was actively and purposefully involved in influencing the elections. A company with foreign interests. People can argue all day about its effectiveness, but regardless of that, the existence of that company in and of itself is a problem. Really dont see why that should be downplayed by some shoddy analysis made by facebook about ads on facebook.

Whether you want to take FBs research or not (I'm not a Zuckerberg fan and I don't support these platforms in their use of data and their monopoly nature), this isn't cut and dried and I think it's dangerous to just follow the Russia thing with an MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Democrat bias. I'm not denying that there is truth to the investigation or that Russia is shady as fuck with this. That said, I don't see the FBI or CIA as friends of the people, neither establishment Democrats. Trump and his goons are incompetent imbeciles and generally bad people in policy and underhanded tactics...just evil fuckers in every way. That said, the Russia scandal obscures so many other heinous goings on that are far from peripheral i.e. the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the entire U.S system...the money involved, the interests, the militarism etc 

"MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Democrat bias." 

What's biased about yesterdays 13 indictments?

It's plain silly to see an equivalence between these 13 indictments and results from Facebook analysing Facebook ads. If it would be about the FBI investigating itself it would be a different story. Facebook should allow some independent analysis. And I'd assume the FBI to be independent when it comes to researching foreign influence. It's not like they're investigating against their own self-interest.

You're taking a cynical position where everything has become questionable, by definition. That's really easy. But the thing is, Facebook's analysis is not questionable because it's Facebook. It's results are questionable because the process is questionable. You can't have a commercial company investigate itself and believe the outcomes on their blue eyes. That's not a matter of trustworthiness of the company on a whole, that's a matter of independence. That's similar to a drug company being forced to have independent research proving efficacy of a new drug.

Genius Blumenthal here basically creates a false equivalence between results from research by a pharmaceutical company about one of its drugs and results from an independent institution which exists by virtue of doing independent research on drug efficacy. Sure you can hide behind a "it's not cut and dry" facade. It never is, isn't it. But that's avoiding the sheer nonsense of Blumenthals argument. It's not an actual argument. It's just BS.

If you want to call that bias, fine. I call that logic.

Here's some good articles from genius Blumenthal and co re: Russia hype

https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/clint-watts-fake-russia-expert

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-weve-learned-in-year-one-of-russiagate/ 

Now what? Do these article make sense of that nonsensical argument? Or are we sidestepping the issue? And move to a discussion about "Russia hype". This is not about hype. This is about the meaning of those 13 indictments. Genius blum argues it doesn't mean anything (based on what exactly?) and uses Facebook results as proof. I call his argument BS. Point.

Why should I read those articles?

hey godel....lets chill and talk ay...im referring in general to how these indictments (even if theyre totally legit and deadly serious) fit into a russia hype narrative that is symptomatic of a wider political issue of distraction and diversion in establishment U.S discourse. 

Thats what im talking about. 

strawman

also, blumy calls the investigation a farce. there's a couple of russiagate hypes. the pro-hype and the against-hype. guess where people belong who call this ongoing investigation a farce. 

you hate the hype. but instead you've put your head in the opposite hype. well done!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/muellers-indictment-reveals-details-of-russian-election-interference/553625/?utm_source=atltw

  Quote

 

The indictment alleges that, beginning in 2014, the defendants “knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other … to defraud the United States” by influencing U.S. political processes in an operation they dubbed “Project Lakhta.” Two of the defendants, Aleksandra Krylova and Anna Bogacheva, actually traveled to the United States in the summer of 2014 to “gather intelligence” for the project, according to the indictment.

The defendants’ operations in 2016, the indictment alleges, included “supporting” Trump’s candidacy and “disparaging Hillary Clinton,” Trump’s Democratic opponent. They also bolstered Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders and sought “to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio,” according to the court filing.

The defendants allegedly purchased space on computer servers in the United States to make it look like the social-media campaign was based out of the United States. Some suspects communicated with “unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities,” the indictment claims.

So, yeah about that facebook analysis... 

lol

The idea of the biggest political scandal in US history being “hype” or a distraction. What the actual fuck, Stormy Daniels is a distraction, Mueller’s investigation is the real historic shit and the one thing you should be paying attention to.

weird how american liberal media coverage is so similar to news outlets around the world. they have nearly completed their campaign to conquer the media globe. only a brave few remain.

btw the term "liberal media" originates with republicans trying to discredit stories about nixon, leading up to his impending removal and resignation over a spoil of crimes so massive he didnt have any hope of escaping the two-thirds senate vote needed to remove a president from office

  On 2/17/2018 at 3:36 PM, very honest said:

weird how american liberal media coverage is so similar to news outlets around the world. they have nearly completed their campaign to conquer the media globe. only a brave few remain.

I applaud the real journalists still trudging through this shit, as a lefty and intellectual I find myself listening to BBC more often than even NPR sometimes...they often shoot themselves in the foot by getting too subjective and leading. It's hard for me even to stay informed when no one who I want to influence (misguided friends and family) will care or listen.

Objective journalism and news reporting is the biggest victim to all of this. WaPo and NYT are struggling as formats because it's so much more lucrative to go the way of CNN, MSNBC, etc. - all of who are trying to keep up with FOX and every right-wing rag. In the era of open info and free speech outlets, more people are succumbing to authoritarian propaganda and nationalist, populist drivel. 

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

following coverage from outlets around the world is a great way to learn what the various spins are. (following the international sections of major outlets from all over so you see how different outlets cover the same story)

by plainly seeing various spins it kind of isolates the language pertaining to attribution. 

an important skill is recognizing when people talk like a scientist and when they talk like a sales person.

  On 2/17/2018 at 4:04 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 2/17/2018 at 3:36 PM, very honest said:

weird how american liberal media coverage is so similar to news outlets around the world. they have nearly completed their campaign to conquer the media globe. only a brave few remain.

 

I applaud the real journalists still trudging through this shit, as a lefty and intellectual I find myself listening to BBC more often than even NPR sometimes...they often shoot themselves in the foot by getting too subjective and leading. It's hard for me even to stay informed when no one who I want to influence (misguided friends and family) will care or listen.

 

Objective journalism and news reporting is the biggest victim to all of this. WaPo and NYT are struggling as formats because it's so much more lucrative to go the way of CNN, MSNBC, etc. - all of who are trying to keep up with FOX and every right-wing rag. In the era of open info and free speech outlets, more people are succumbing to authoritarian propaganda and nationalist, populist drivel. 

 

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

 

Damn it I hate when Orwell is accurate

He's literally throwing a hissy fit right now.