Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

11718192022

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    May be triggering for some...
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @SirPalomides
    You used the word sodomised. That is an unfortunately choice of words, as it is one designed to smear homosexuality. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not homophobic and that you used the word in the descriptive sense rather than the pejorative.

    Would "buggered" be more to your liking? Is there a nice way of describing a bayonet being forced up someone's rear end?

    You could say "anally raped", which describes the violation precisely, while avoiding the religious-legalistic prudery inherent in "sodomy".

    Or even just "raped", I suppose, assuming people will get the general idea of how that would have been done.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 21
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    OK, I'll spell it out. US isolationism is a great boon to Russia and a detriment to the US. Simple enough for you?

    "Isolationism" is not a concept that appears, explicitly or implicitly, on Gabbard's foreign policy platform. That's another smear. She does specifically oppose a foreign policy that leans on interventions, military or otherwise, aimed at destabilizing other countries as part of schemes for combating the influence of this or that rival power. It is her contention- and one I happen to agree with- that this policy has done far more harm than good.

    There are many other ways to engage with the world that don't involve threats, coups, and economic warfare.

    Also, if you think it's a detriment to the US, you need to actually spell out why. "It's good for Russia" is not a reason. Be specific. What good did it do to pour billions of dollars into the funding and training of brutal, misogynist, homophobic, sectarian militias? How would it have harmed the US not to do this?

  • stetson wrote: »
    May be triggering for some...
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @SirPalomides
    You used the word sodomised. That is an unfortunately choice of words, as it is one designed to smear homosexuality. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not homophobic and that you used the word in the descriptive sense rather than the pejorative.

    Would "buggered" be more to your liking? Is there a nice way of describing a bayonet being forced up someone's rear end?

    You could say "anally raped", which describes the violation precisely, while avoiding the religious-legalistic prudery inherent in "sodomy".

    Or even just "raped", I suppose, assuming people will get the general idea of how that would have been done.

    Okay. Let's go with that. So Clinton bragged and laughed about ^ that.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    OK, I'll spell it out. US isolationism is a great boon to Russia and a detriment to the US. Simple enough for you?

    "Isolationism" is not a concept that appears, explicitly or implicitly, on Gabbard's foreign policy platform.
    Yeah, the carefully phrased official rhetoric is perfectly representational. :smirk:

    Also, if you think it's a detriment to the US, you need to actually spell out why. "It's good for Russia" is not a reason. Be specific.
    Ukraine.
    What good did it do to pour billions of dollars into the funding and training of brutal, misogynist, homophobic, sectarian militias? How would it have harmed the US not to do this?
    Yeah. Doesn't address why isolationism is bad. Merely implies that a criticism of it is supporting those bad things.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    OK, I'll spell it out. US isolationism is a great boon to Russia and a detriment to the US. Simple enough for you?

    "Isolationism" is not a concept that appears, explicitly or implicitly, on Gabbard's foreign policy platform.
    Yeah, the carefully phrased official rhetoric is perfectly representational. :smirk:

    So I assume you have some non-carefully phrased material to support your claim that Gabbard is isolationist. And I assume you also have a useful definition of "isolationism" to go with it.
    Also, if you think it's a detriment to the US, you need to actually spell out why. "It's good for Russia" is not a reason. Be specific.
    Ukraine.

    Ooh. Great example. So Ukraine has this democratically elected president Yanukovych who is, to be fair, very sleazy and corrupt, though not unusually so for Ukrainian politics. He is deferential to Russia, though more for run-of-the-mill corrupt reasons than conviction. Russia also happens to be Ukraine's single most important trading partner.

    In 2014 Yanukovych is removed from power by the Western-backed Maidan coup that brings to power... a different set of gangsters and oligarchs, though this time with a pronounced nationalist, anti-Russian, sort-of pro-EU stance. Protests erupt in primarily Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine against the new Kiev government, as Kiev politicians talk openly about making Ukrainian the sole official language . Russia takes the opportunity to annex Crimea. Later, fighting starts in the Donbas between Ukrainian military and separatists backed by Russia.

    It so happens that the best-organized, most effective military forces for the new Maidan government draw from neo-Nazi groups- Svoboda, Praviy Sektor, etc. The most notorious such grouping is the Azov Battalion which is now an official part of Ukraine's national guard. These groups- and more importantly their ideology- gain influence in the Kiev government utterly disproportionate to their popular support. Holocaust revisionism becomes official government policy and monuments to Stepan Bandera and his fascist OUN-UPA go up all over western Ukraine. Last year an FBI indictment revealed that American neo-Nazis have trained with Azov in Ukraine.

    Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy has tanked as it has lost its key trading partner (Russia) while implementing austerity measures imposed by EU trading partners.

    This year Ukrainians elected Zelensky, who, among other things, campaigned on a promise to reach a peace agreement with Russia. The Nazis are not pleased. Of course the fact that Zelensky is of Jewish descent feeds their hate all the more.

    Ukraine will probably never get Crimea back. The Donbass is a bargaining chip for Putin and he's not going to give up on his proxies there without some painful concessions from Ukraine. The economy is in the shitter and Nazis- not metaphorical Nazis, not soup Nazis, not grammar Nazis- but actual Nazis have a ridiculous influence on the public narrative.

    So yeah, Ukraine is a great example of why American interventionism is a disaster.

    Doesn't address why isolationism is bad. .

    Since "isolationism" has no relevance to Gabbard's platform, there's no need to address it.

  • Way to miss points and offer distractions.
    Russia want Ukraine, either directly or by puppet. There is no one to stop that. Whether one thinks that is good or bad is a different subject. As is American influences in the same region.
    It is a more complex subject than X is bad and Y is good. And again, you paint everything with the same brush.
    But whatevs, bro.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited October 22
    chris--
    Golden Key wrote: »
    No, but it shouldn't be rejected out of hand, either.

    I don't think insisting that such claims should be accompanied by evidence is an outrageous demand.

    No, it's not, though it seems to take a long time for proof of such things to publicly surface, even when the allegations are 100% true.

    My concern with Sir Palomides' posts on the matter was that they seemed to be an extremely powerful knee-jerk reaction to the idea that Russia could possibly do such a thing. Given the last 4 yrs. or so, plus all the decades of the Cold War, I think it's at least possible that they did and are continuing to do so.

    I also bear in mind that the US has messed around in other countries' elections and politics, and likely still is. Wrong to do.


  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    No, but it shouldn't be rejected out of hand, either.

    I don't think insisting that such claims should be accompanied by evidence is an outrageous demand.

    You mean things like the reasonably well-documented Russian propaganda effort on behalf of Jill Stein (right foreground), noting that a similar operation seems to have been started on Gabbard's behalf, and drawing some kind of inference?
    Golden Key wrote: »
    My concern with Sir Palomides' posts on the matter was that they seemed to be an extremely powerful knee-jerk reaction to the idea that Russia could possibly do such a thing. Given the last 4 yrs. or so, plus all the decades of the Cold War, I think it's at least possible that they did and are continuing to do so.

    Saying that Russia would never do such a thing is one of SirP's two default positions on questions like this. His other default is of course Russia did this and no one should blame them for it. It's kind of amazing to see him take both positions on the same question, as I've linked, but there it is.
  • Croesus, you are, as usual, leaning on strawmen and smears. Come up with a rational defense of the assertion that Gabbard is being groomed as a Russian asset, or take your childishness to a Hell thread where it can receive the (concise) response it merits.
  • It seems to me that Gabbard's campaign was dead in the water, and Clinton's comments acted as a bit of a boost. Why would Clinton do that if her primary intention was to harm Gabbard?
  • Bernie Sanders denounces the smear against Rep Gabbard. Predictably the crazies are having a meltdown and accusing him of being a Russian asset too. Hilarious.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It seems to me that Gabbard's campaign was dead in the water, and Clinton's comments acted as a bit of a boost. Why would Clinton do that if her primary intention was to harm Gabbard?
    The non-conspiracy motive would be that she is concerned about the very real threat of Russian interference in the 2020 election. They did it in 2016, and it was effective.
  • Or just to get her to deny that she's going to run as a third party candidate?
  • Sir Palomides--

    Respectfully: your arguments on the topics of Russia and China usually seem to be unwavering, total support for them. You're absolutely entitled to your beliefs and opinions, and to post them.

    However, your arguments read (to me, and evidently to others) as fiery in the defense of Russia and China. And, to me, your follow-up arguments seem to be attacks on anyone (Shipmate, politician, etc.) who disagrees at all, or even considers a possibility of wrong-doing by China and Russia.

    It's...confusing, and IME somewhat wearing.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    No, but it shouldn't be rejected out of hand, either.

    I don't think insisting that such claims should be accompanied by evidence is an outrageous demand.

    You mean things like the reasonably well-documented Russian propaganda effort on behalf of Jill Stein (right foreground), noting that a similar operation seems to have been started on Gabbard's behalf, and drawing some kind of inference?

    You may like to reflect on whether giving the Russians (or those reporting on them) the unilateral ability to define 'an asset' is a good or bad thing.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Sir Palomides--

    Respectfully: your arguments on the topics of Russia and China usually seem to be unwavering, total support for them.

    Anyone who actually reads my posts on either of these countries can see that this is blatantly untrue. If you have any specific disagreements with what I actually say, give a rational, informed argument.
  • Good summation of the present insanity: Everyone is a Russian Asset
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    ...My concern with Sir Palomides' posts on the matter was that they seemed to be an extremely powerful knee-jerk reaction to the idea that Russia could possibly do such a thing. Given the last 4 yrs. or so, plus all the decades of the Cold War, I think it's at least possible that they did and are continuing to do so. ...
    It's more than possible; the U.S. intelligence community has demonstrated that Russia screwed around with U.S. politics and the election. Furthermore, the Russians are clearly working hard to do it again in 2020. And in that, they have the assistance of both POTUS (who consistently defers to Putin and other loathesome dictators) and "Moscow Mitch" McConnell (who refuses to tighten security for American elections, in the face of clear-cut evidence of Russian interference).
    I also bear in mind that the US has messed around in other countries' elections and politics, and likely still is. Wrong to do.
    It is wrong no matter who does it. And regardless of past wrongs on our side, we need to defend ourselves from it now. I truly believe that the American republic is in danger from without as well as within.



  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Sir Palomides--

    Respectfully: your arguments on the topics of Russia and China usually seem to be unwavering, total support for them.

    Anyone who actually reads my posts on either of these countries can see that this is blatantly untrue. If you have any specific disagreements with what I actually say, give a rational, informed argument.
    Actually, it would be nice if you could provide rational, informed arguments to refute such statements. I have yet to read anything from you that did not support the brutal, anti-democratic regimes in Russia and China.

  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 23
    Here’s how these conversations go:

    Holy shit look at this video of Xi Jinping eating tripe made from Uighur intestines

    Me: actually that’s not Xi Jinping and that’s not tripe.

    Oh yeah? So you’re saying that China is a benevolent utopia where the government never does anything wrong?

    Me: No, I’m just saying that’s a video of Jackie Chan eating Peking duck in NYC Chinatown.

    OMG I knew it, you’re a China propagandist. Are you a wumao? Who’s paying you?! Show yourself!!

    Ad infinitum
  • Sir Palomides--

    I see what you're getting at...

    ...and, respectfully, if you flip that around so that *you're* the one making outrageous statements about something, that's how *your* posts often sound...

    ...which is what several people have tried to tell you...

    Is there a way to make this work better, all around?

    FWIW. Thx.
  • If you think I make outrageous statements then refute them, specifically. Making sweeping complaints about my alleged beliefs and motives is just ad hominem distraction.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Well, surprise, surprise - the NY Times got the quote wrong. Clinton said she thinks the Republicans, not the Russians, are grooming a third-party candidate. She said she thinks they have their eye on someone in the Democratic primary who has support from Russian bots, but also said she's making no predictions - that third-party candidate could be Jill Stein again or someone else. It's all in a podcast episode she did with David Plouffe. Listen from about the 34-minute mark:

    https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/cadence13/campaign-hq-with-david-plouffe/e/64659318?autoplay=true&offset=2046&refid=asi_twtr

    (I learned this on Twitter from Nick Merrill.)
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Which is worse: that a reporter from the NYT, allegedly our national "paper of record," got such a quote from such a source so wrong, or that our governance is now in such parlous state that it's both easy and understandable to see how "Republican" and "Russian" could so readily be confused, or that it's taken this long for that confusion to surface?
  • There are plenty of reasons why the NYT is (usually) a joke but in this case "She was actually talking about the Republicans" is a bit of ridiculous damage control by her people, who previously had confirmed that she accusing Gabbard of being a Russian asset. Plouffe certainly interpreted it that way and Clinton spox Merrill said "if the nesting doll fits..."
    Here's the quote:

    Clinton: "The thing we have to do is get enough people to turn out so that they can’t, you know, steal those votes through suppression in Wisconsin, or convince blacks not to vote in Michigan, all the stuff that they did this last time which was very effective and the Russians play a big role in."

    Plouffe: "Right, and they’ll double down on this time. Trump had those advantages but he was not an incumbent. So as we know, whether it’s Ronald Regan, your husband, Barack Obama, those first 18 months of the election cycle were as important as the last six months. …

    "You know, Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46.1% of the vote nationally. You know he got 47.2 in Wisconsin, 47.7 in Michigan, and if you had said those before the election you would have said he's going to lose in a landslide."

    Clinton: "Right."

    Plouffe: "But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote."

    Clinton: "Right."

    Plouffe: "And what's clear to me, you mentioned, you know, he's going to just lie. ... He's going to say, whoever our nominee is, ‘will ban hamburgers and steaks and you can't fly and infanticide’ and people believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49 or even 49.5 in a bunch of…"

    Clinton: "He can't do that."

    Plouffe: "...which I don't think he can... So he's going to try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can't vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now."

    Clinton: "Well, I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016: ‘Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me? Don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things and I'm going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they're on the dark web, and nobody can find them, but you're going to see them and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things.’"

    They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."


    It is very far from clear that the "they're" in bold refers to Republicans; in context the previously- and subsequently- named "Russians" is the most natural interpretation. Moreover, it has no bearings on the "favorite of the Russians" and "also a Russian asset" stuff that follows.

    So this "it was really about Republicans" argument is disingenuous spin. Moreover, alleging that Gabbard is being groomed by the Republicans to be a third party candidate, after Gabbard has plainly stated she is not going third party, is still a smear.

    Also, the idea that blacks didn't vote in Michigan because of Russian influence is both completely evidence free and racist.


  • A hilarious "documentary" summarizing the Clinton narrative perfectly: Russia's Plot to Make America Racist
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Ohher wrote: »
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Which is worse: that a reporter from the NYT, allegedly our national "paper of record,"

    I am currently an online subscriber because I happened upon a deal, but their journalistic standards in the wake of 9/11 were so bad they eventually had to admit it, and their endless harping on Clinton's emails was unforgivable.

    "How much we sucked":
    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Another month, another Democratic primary assessment. Similar to last time we're about a week after a debate. Different from last time there's actually been some movement in relative candidate positions.

    The Front Runners
    • Joe Biden
    • Elizabeth Warren

    The polls seem to have bifurcated on the question of the frontrunner. Some (HarrisX, Politico) have Biden up by about ten percentage points. Others (YouGov, Quinnipiac) have Warren leading by three or four points. This is consistent enough that I suspect it's more a function of how each polling organization constructs its hypothetical electorate rather than differences in raw results. We won't know which one of them is right about who's going to show up on election day until February.

    We'll see if Warren can maintain this surge. Biden seems to be holding steady, neither gaining nor losing significant support.

    The Second Tier
    • Bernie Sanders

    Sanders still polls in the mid-teens, about where he's been since early May. Reports of his heart attack seem to have not dampened anyone's support for him, but he can't seem to generate enthusiasm beyond the mid-teens either with the exception of an Emmerson College poll that had him at 25% support.

    The Long Shots
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Kamala Harris

    Harris and Buttigieg are polling in the mid-single-digits.

    No Chance/Running for Cabinet
    • Michael Bennet
    • Cory Booker
    • Steve Bullock
    • Julián Castro
    • John Delaney
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Wayne Messam
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Tom Steyer
    • Marianne Williamson
    • Andrew Yang

    All the candidates on the above list are polling below 3% support.

    The Dropouts
    • Bill de Blasio
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • Mike Gravel
    • John Hickenlooper
    • Jay Inslee
    • Seth Moulton
    • Richard Ojeda
    • Eric Swalwell

    These candidates have ended their run for the nomination. What's interesting is that no one has dropped out since my last summary.

    Here's some early state polling. A win, or even a strong showing, in one of these states can boost a lower-tier candidate to prominence.

    Iowa: [3 Feb, 41 delegates] Most polls of this state have Biden and Warren tied for the lead, with Pete Buttigieg not far behind and Sanders in fourth place. One exception is YouGov which posits a three-way Biden/Sanders/Warren tie for first place.

    New Hampshire: [11 Feb, 24 delegates] Elizabeth Warren is either leading in this state or tied with Joe Biden. Sanders is either in third place or also tied for first.

    Nevada: [22 Feb, 36 delegates] Nevada seems to be the unloved stepchild of early primary/caucus states. No one wants to poll here so no post-fourth-debate polls exist for this state yet. The two post-third-debate polls that exist posit either a Biden/Sanders tie with Warren in third, or Biden leading, followed by Warren, and then Sanders. Everyone else is in single digits here.

    South Carolina: [29 Feb, 54 delegates] Biden still way out in front in this state with either Warren and Sanders tied for second or Warren followed by Sanders.

    So this is the current "state of play" about three-and-a-half months before anyone will be casting a vote anywhere.
  • Yes it is important to remember that newspapers with great reputations can still get things wrong, and that such errors by reputable news sources are amplified, because their very reputation makes them a badge of authenticity. I don't imagine we will see apologies from people who played stacks on the mill with Clinton over the episode.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 24
    What is there to apologize for? The NYT’s account was accurate. Clinton is precisely as sleazy as she has made herself out to be.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I'll probably regret this, but . . . sleazy how, exactly? She's been investigated up, down, & sideways for multiple issues multiple times, yet no deliberate wrongdoing has ever surfaced and even some of her opponents praise her ethics. While I personally don't find her especially likable, she's highly intelligent, eminently competent, extremely knowledgeable, deeply experienced and knows her way around government. I think she'd have made a fine president. It's a shame she puts so many people off, but . . . sleazy?
  • Ohher wrote: »
    I'll probably regret this, but . . . sleazy how, exactly? She's been investigated up, down, & sideways for multiple issues multiple times, yet no deliberate wrongdoing has ever surfaced and even some of her opponents praise her ethics. While I personally don't find her especially likable, she's highly intelligent, eminently competent, extremely knowledgeable, deeply experienced and knows her way around government. I think she'd have made a fine president. It's a shame she puts so many people off, but . . . sleazy?

    Who said anything about likability? I’m talking specifically about her smear of Tulsi Gabbard. Of course I could also mention her role in mass incarceration, support for the Iraq war, adulation of Kissinger, support for the MEK, cheerleading for Syrian jihadists, bragging and laughing about the destruction of Libya and the cruel murder of its leader, and her bonkers and racist claim that black people didn’t vote for her in Michigan because of... Russians. But let’s not get too far afield.

  • Ohher wrote: »
    I'll probably regret this, but . . . sleazy how, exactly? She's been investigated up, down, & sideways for multiple issues multiple times, yet no deliberate wrongdoing has ever surfaced and even some of her opponents praise her ethics. While I personally don't find her especially likable, she's highly intelligent, eminently competent, extremely knowledgeable, deeply experienced and knows her way around government. I think she'd have made a fine president. It's a shame she puts so many people off, but . . . sleazy?

    I don’t think you need to have done anything illegal for voters to feel you are tainted by the swamp, getting colossally wealthy thanks to a Washington establishment far removed from most people’s lives. It’s Why we need to talk about Hunter Biden.
    This [that Hunter Biden has broken no laws] is all true, and arguably these are the right lines vis-a-vis the long overdue impeachment proceedings. What’s harder to shake is the fact that Hunter Biden’s career is undeniably shady in the way that only the son of a longtime Washington insider could muster, failing upwards into positions of influence and power on the merits of his last name.


  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 24
    Golden Key wrote: »

    Michael Bloomberg is still in this thing? Do any non-lizard people actually think he's worthwhile? Here's a good article on how centrist Dems are groping for any mediocre candidate to avoid a Warren or Sanders nomination: Anybody but Bernie- or Warren

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    . . . her bonkers and racist claim that black people didn’t vote for her in Michigan because of... Russians. But let’s not get too far afield.

    Yeah, that was in the Senate Intelligence Committee report [PDF] that you previously found to be a pack of filthy lies, then you claimed the report's account of Russian propaganda aimed at influencing the 2016 election was obvious and anyone who claimed to find this problematic was dumb. Now it's "bonkers" to believe something you previously considered obvious. This truly is Schrödinger's Report. It's true/false/insane all at the same time!

    Yes, I know you consider accurately remembering and linking to your past comments to be a "smear". I'll live with that.
  • @Crœsos Whilst there is nothing funny about politics at the moment, that last line brought a genuine chuckle.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    . . . her bonkers and racist claim that black people didn’t vote for her in Michigan because of... Russians. But let’s not get too far afield.

    Yeah, that was in the Senate Intelligence Committee report [PDF] that you previously found to be a pack of filthy lies, then you claimed the report's account of Russian propaganda aimed at influencing the 2016 election was obvious and anyone who claimed to find this problematic was dumb. Now it's "bonkers" to believe something you previously considered obvious. This truly is Schrödinger's Report. It's true/false/insane all at the same time!

    I'm flattered that you keep such close track of my words!

    So, Croesus, my number one fan, are you aware of the difference between attempting to do something, and succeeding? For instance, when you try to derail a conversation with ad hominem childishness instead of actually addressing any issues substantively, and yet fail because I don't play your childish games?

    Has it occurred to you that Russia might have flooded facebook and twitter with bots and stupid memes (as did others) and yet it may still have had no appreciable effect on the election?

    If you have any evidence, from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or elsewhere, that significant numbers of black voters in Michigan didn't vote for Clinton because of Russian interference, by all means produce it. I'll wait.

  • In the mean time, instead of assuming that black voters are so stupid as to be convinced not to vote by Russian twitter bots, maybe actually listening to what some of them say would do you good.

  • Call me a cynic, but I wonder if they're hoping for the V.P. slot on Bernie's ticket, knowing he's older than Moses (with a heart condition), giving the V.P. a good shot at becoming POTUS.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 24
    Well, for one thing, Somalia-born Ilhan Omar would be ineligible for VP, absent a constitutional amendment within the next few months. For another, everything I've seen from these two representatives indicates to me they are sincere and principled politicians and their stated reasons for supporting Bernie line up with their previous words and actions.

    Of course I would be ecstatic at the prospect of a president Omar or AOC!
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    AOC isn't old enough to be VP on anyone's ticket in 2020; she won't turn 35 till October of 2024. I'll vote for her at the earliest opportunity.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So, Croesus, my number one fan, are you aware of the difference between attempting to do something, and succeeding?

    Indeed. One of the reasons propagandists still use propaganda is because it works. It's got a pretty high success rate overall, including against fact-checks demonstrating that propaganda is made up of lies.

    I've always thought that one of the surest signs someone is vulnerable to being propagandized is their self-assurance that they're too smart to fall for propaganda.
    Has it occurred to you that Russia might have flooded facebook and twitter with bots and stupid memes (as did others) and yet it may still have had no appreciable effect on the election?

    If you have any evidence, from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or elsewhere, that significant numbers of black voters in Michigan didn't vote for Clinton because of Russian interference, by all means produce it. I'll wait.

    You don't have to wait very long. From the article you posted:
    Many of her fellow African American voters, a core segment of this state’s Democratic base, also believe the party let them down. In Detroit in 2016, voter turnout dipped compared with the two previous presidential elections.

    Do you even read those things before you link to them?

    So an effort by Russia's Internet Research Agency to suppress the black vote in the upper Midwest is followed by a lower black voter turnout in the upper Midwest. Example tweet below:
    The excuse that a lost Black vote for Hillary is a Trump win is bs. It could be late, but y’all might want to support Jill Stein instead.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc may be a logical fallacy, but in the real world it's the best we can often do, especially when it comes to political campaign strategies. Russia launched an attempt to depress black votes in the upper Midwest and promote the candidacy of Jill Stein. And whaddaya know? Black votes in the upper Midwest were down and Jill Stein more than doubled her 2012 vote totals in Michigan and Pennsylvania and quadrupled her 2012 vote total in Wisconsin. In most political campaigns "message crafted to appeal to X is followed by increased support from X" is usually about as good as proof gets and a lot of consultants sell their services based on a lot less.

    But Hillary Clinton is the "bonkers" one because she understands Duverger's Law.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    You don't have to wait very long. From the article you posted:
    Many of her fellow African American voters, a core segment of this state’s Democratic base, also believe the party let them down. In Detroit in 2016, voter turnout dipped compared with the two previous presidential elections.

    My dear Croesus, let's try this again. I asked you:

    If you have any evidence, from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or elsewhere, that significant numbers of black voters in Michigan didn't vote for Clinton because of Russian interference, by all means produce it. I'll wait.

    Don't give up, Croesus, you might find it yet.
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc may be a logical fallacy, but

    A sentence starting this way never ends well. Should have quit while you're ahead.

    If you have any evidence, from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or elsewhere, that significant numbers of black voters in Michigan didn't vote for Clinton because of Russian interference, by all means produce it. I'll wait.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    AOC isn't old enough to be VP on anyone's ticket in 2020; she won't turn 35 till October of 2024. I'll vote for her at the earliest opportunity.

    Speaking of AOC and propaganda, here's AOC questioning Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg yesterday on his company's policy towards political ads containing falsehoods. He claims Facebook would not allow falsehoods like an ad targeted at a specific demographic telling them the wrong voting day, but would allow falsely portraying a politician's voting record. Zuckerberg hemmed and hawed a lot about where the exact threshold is between political lies Facebook will take down and those it won't.

    It's a good view if you've got five and half minutes and aren't somewhere sound is forbidden.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    And right after I post that there have been no drop-outs since last month Tim Ryan decides to end his presidential run.
    Rep. Tim Ryan dropped out of the 2020 presidential race on Thursday, ending a campaign that failed to gain any traction in a large field of better-financed and better-known Democrats.

    In a video sent to his supporters, Ryan also announced that he will instead run for reelection to the House of Representatives.

    Retaining his House seat is probably a better use of Ryan's time and energy.
  • Some passages from the LA Times article:

    Mass incarceration is a big issue for Powell — as well as the women at the gathering — and a reason that Clinton left her cold.

    For a large chunk of her childhood, she lived without her father, who served seven years in prison on drug charges.

    She holds Clinton partly responsible because of her support for the crime bill her husband, President Clinton, signed in 1994, which helped fuel a rise in the U.S. prison population, disproportionately putting young black and brown men behind bars...

    John Ware, an African American who’s been living in the same working-class section of southwest Detroit since the 1960s, isn’t sold.

    “They’re all liars,” said Ware, 56.

    He didn’t vote in 2016 and feels so exasperated with politicians that he doesn’t know what they could say to get him to vote next year...

    When the Democrats held their second round of debates in Detroit in July, Michigan’s shuttered factories and economically depleted cities received only a rhetorical peck on the cheek in nearly five televised hours over two nights. Black voters here are just as noncommittal when asked to pick a favorite candidate.

    “It’s like, I’ve got all of this love to give and I’m just waiting for my suitor to come and let me love on ‘em — but I know my worth,” LaTarro Traylor joked, referring to the candidates.

    Traylor, 36, is a small-business attorney 150 miles away in Grand Rapids, which, like Detroit and nearby Flint, fell into a years-long slump. The Democrat voted for Obama twice but made a conscious decision not to vote for president in 2016, a choice she stands by today.

    “It’s always our job to save the world,” she said of the much-ballyhooed importance of black voters like herself to the Democrats. “But it’s like we don’t matter policywise.”


    Now, are these the reasons Michigan's black voters, who turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, did not turn out in the same numbers for Hillary Clinton? I won't follow the strange path of employing an admitted fallacy as proof. There is, of course, no way of knowing for sure the motivations of all those voters. Those who spoke to the LA Times, though, gave an array of reasons, none of which even suggest, "I saw some pretty convincing twitter memes." Rather their reasons are very straightforward, understandable, and based in experience. Even if I might dispute that they are valid reasons for staying home, I see no reason to doubt their sincerity.

    So again, without falling on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if we are given a choice between a range of reasons for not voting for Clinton, which seems more likely? More straightforward? More respectful of these people as thinking human beings?

    A. That these voters were enthusiastic about Obama because they saw something in him that they did not see in Clinton?

    Or

    B. Or that they were all ready to turn out in the same numbers for Clinton until some tweets and memes overpowered their weak minds?

    There are other possible explanations too, none mutually exclusive. For instance,

    C. 8 years of a Democratic president, who talked a great game but effected little felt improvement in their lives, disillusioned some people with the system in general.

    D. The Clinton campaign ran a less than stellar effort in Michigan, something widely remarked on at the time including by campaign officials.

    So to assert without any evidence- as Clinton does- that the Russians played a "big role" in convincing blacks not to turn out for her in Michigan, is to ignore some glaring and oft-stated critiques of Clinton and the system in general given by black voters themselves as well as observers and analysts. It is to say that black voters have no understanding of their own motivations, that they owe their unquestioning allegiance to the Democratic party, that they have no legitimate grievance with said party, that their suffering under the socio-economic order that Democrats uphold together with Republicans is unreal, that they have a duty to swallow their pain and anger to "save the world" by continuously pulling the lever for neoliberals who don't give a shit about them, that the only possible major reason they did not turn out in force to support Clinton is because some bots flooded social media with shitty memes and tweets, because they're really that dumb.

    In other words, Clinton's assertion is bonkers and racist.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So again, without falling on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if we are given a choice between a range of reasons for not voting for Clinton, which seems more likely? More straightforward? More respectful of these people as thinking human beings?

    A. That these voters were enthusiastic about Obama because they saw something in him that they did not see in Clinton?

    Or

    B. Or that they were all ready to turn out in the same numbers for Clinton until some tweets and memes overpowered their weak minds?

    Wait a sec. In order to present those as mutually exclusive options don't you need to conclusively demonstrate that the Russian propaganda campaign had no effect on how anyone saw Hillary Clinton? I'm sure you'll be able to come up with definitive proof of this proposition.

    I'm not sure I buy your claim that black Americans are uniquely immune to propaganda. Essentially this is a claim that white Americans are so credulous they can be easily convinced there's a worldwide pedophile ring run out of a pizza parlor (not Russian in origin but definitely propaganda) but black Americans have some kind of instinctive and infallible "sense" of truth and falsehood.
  • No colour has a particular claim on stupid, especially when it comes to voting.
Sign In or Register to comment.