The Donald Trump Thread

Vault313 said:
Because she's a power hungry opportunist that only cares about obtaining power. I truly do not believe it was ever about money for her, it was and is about the power that money provides. The ends will always justify the means for her.

As for the Wikileaks request, transparency is always good. Though, I'm not really sure what people are hoping to find. Any idea on that?
Click to expand...

Vault, what's this all about?
http://allnewspipeline.com/Vault_7_Goes_Viral_Why.php
 
Max_B said:
Is he expecting to get kicked out of the Ecuador embassy on the 19th?
Click to expand...

Why do you think they (wikileaks and snowden) use this tactic of communicating in cryptic tweeted messages like this? Obviously it generates public interest so people get involved trying to decipher the meaning. Is that the whole point? Build suspense and awareness before a release by getting the public involved in spy novel type stuff?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Hurmanetar said:
Why do you think they (wikileaks and snowden) use this tactic of communicating in cryptic tweeted messages like this? Obviously it generates public interest so people get involved trying to decipher the meaning. Is that the whole point? Build suspense and awareness before a release by getting the public involved in spy novel type stuff?
Click to expand...

Dunno, guess he needs lots of eyes on him to have any chance of success... there will be a new President in Ecuador on the 18th... Assange already released the data (but it's encrypted)... so I guess if the embassy is instructed to kick him out, and/or they (USA?) don't treat him nice... Assange can threaten to release the encryption key to the files. I guess no one knows if there is summat special in them, or not...
 
Jim_Smith said:
A lot of the crazyness of these weird times we are living in, by the left and the right, is caused by cynical manipulation of the media, to make the opposition react in ways that make it look bad and to make supporters more emotionally involved in the cause.

http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helpe...aybook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/
I Helped Create the Milo Trolling Playbook. You Should Stop Playing Right Into It.
​
In this war, there are no good guys.

It's all fake news.

If the article is right about Milo trolling the left in order to sell books, then the people who were injured during the Berkeley riots are blood on Milo's hands.


Click to expand...

Actually ... this is how non-violent resistance is supposed to work. Use non violent means to cause the regime become more and more repressive so they alienate more and more people until no one supports them any more.

http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf
Why Civil Resistance Works The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict
Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth​
 
Hurmanetar said:
Why do you think they (wikileaks and snowden) use this tactic of communicating in cryptic tweeted messages like this? Obviously it generates public interest so people get involved trying to decipher the meaning. Is that the whole point? Build suspense and awareness before a release by getting the public involved in spy novel type stuff?
Click to expand...

 
Jim_Smith said:
If the article is right about Milo trolling the left in order to sell books, then the people who were injured during the Berkeley riots are blood on Milo's hands.
Click to expand...

Ah, I don't know. I think Milo's running commentary - done in a fashion I strongly disagree with though I'm not 100% against his claims nor the claims he opposes - doesn't justify violence.

The most amazing thing to me is having read his articles and whatnot....it seems easy enough to refute him partially, sometimes even completely, via intellectual argumentation? I sometimes wonder if New Atheism (along with other "alt-left" groups) corrupted American liberalism that it has become so poor at actual engagement.
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
Ah, I don't know. I think Milo's running commentary - done in a fashion I strongly disagree with though I'm not 100% against his claims nor the claims he opposes - doesn't justify violence.

The most amazing thing to me is having read his articles and whatnot....it seems easy enough to refute him partially, sometimes even completely, via intellectual argumentation? I sometimes wonder if New Atheism (along with other "alt-left" groups) corrupted American liberalism that it has become so poor at actual engagement.
Click to expand...

While I'm not against armed struggle, I maintain that it can be enacted only defensively, to stop or prevent intitiatory violence, including institutional violence of the state; it can never be enacted against speech and opinion, now matter how strongly you despise them.
 
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09...-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

An endless array of stunning statistics can be marshaled to demonstrate the extent of that collapse. But perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that even one of the U.S. media’s most stalwart Democratic loyalists, writing in an outlet that is as much of a reliable party organ as the DNC itself, has acknowledged the severity of the destruction. “The Obama years have created a Democratic Party that’s essentially a smoking pile of rubble,” wrote Vox’s Matthew Yglesias after the 2016 debacle, adding that “the story of the 21st-century Democratic Party looks to be overwhelmingly the story of failure.”

A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become president and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: This all happened because the Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.
Click to expand...

Wasserman Schultz was replaced as DNC chair on an interim basis by longtime party operative Donna Brazile, who was quickly engulfed by her own scandal when she got caught secretly passing CNN debate questions to the Clinton campaign, then repeatedly lying about it by denying it and insinuating the emails were forged by the Russians. For that misconduct, CNN fired her, as anchor Jake Tapper denounced her cheating as “horrifying” and CNN said it made the network “completely uncomfortable.”

But Brazile continues to this day to run the DNC. Think about that: Her behavior was so unethical, dishonest, and corrupt that Jeff Zucker-led CNN denounced it and publicly disassociated itself from her. But the DNC seems perfectly comfortable having her continue to lead the party until the next chair is chosen.

Perhaps worse than the serial cheating itself was that it was all in service of coronating a candidate who — as many of us tried to warn at the time — all empirical data showed was the most vulnerable to lose to Donald Trump. So the very same people who bear the blame for Trump’s presidency — by cheating to elevate the candidate most likely to lose to him — continue to dominate the Democratic Party. To describe the situation is to demonstrate the urgency of debating and fixing it, rather than ignoring it in the name of talking only about Trump.
Click to expand...

An even more illustrative episode occurred late Wednesday. Perez was in Kansas campaigning for votes from county leaders and was asked about the need for the party to retain the support of the Sanders contingent. Perez unexpectedly blurted out a truth that party functionaries to this day steadfastly bury and deny even in the face of the mountain of evidence proving it. This is what Perez said:

We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent.

That’s quite an admission from the party establishment’s own candidate: “The process was rigged.” And he commendably acknowledged how important it is to admit this — “to be honest about it” — because “we need a chair who is transparent.”

But Perez’s commitment to “transparency” and “being honest” had a very short life-span. After his admission predictably caused controversy — with furious Clinton supporters protesting the truth — Perez demonstrated the same leadership qualities that were so evident when Zaid Jilani asked him about Israeli human rights abuses.

He quickly slinked onto Twitter with a series of tweets to retract what he said, claim that he “misspoke” (does anyone know what that word means?), apologize for it, and proclaim Hillary Clinton the fair and rightful winner
Click to expand...
 
Hurmanetar said:
Why do you think they (wikileaks and snowden) use this tactic of communicating in cryptic tweeted messages like this? Obviously it generates public interest so people get involved trying to decipher the meaning. Is that the whole point? Build suspense and awareness before a release by getting the public involved in spy novel type stuff?
Click to expand...

Basically because no one will go through tens of thousands of documents if there isn't a promise of a big carrot hidden inside it, or more usually, a narrative one can piece together from multiple emails/documents.
 
Anyone else becoming inured to screaming headlines? I see them now and barely react except with the assumption they are politically motivated, click bait, or fake news. I assume anything that seems to be designed to cause an emotional reaction is done for an ulterior motive. The newscasters look like actors playing a role in a bad TV show. The people in the news are trolls trying to force an error by the opposing team. Like it's April 1 and all the news stories are April fools jokes or links to The Onion. Like the world has gone mad because everyone believes the headlines ... in the National Enquirer.
 
Last edited:
Jim_Smith said:
Anyone else becoming inured to screaming headlines? I see them now and barely react except with the assumption they are politically motivated click bait or fake news. I assume that anything that seems to be designed to cause an emotional reaction is done for an ulterior motive. The newscasters look like actors playing a role in a bad TV show. The people in the news are trolls trying to force an error by the opposing team. It's like the world has gone mad because they believe the headlines ... in the National Enquirer.
Click to expand...
I really don't know what size font CNN will use if something really bad happens.
 
Jim_Smith said:
Anyone else becoming inured to screaming headlines? I see them now and barely react except with the assumption they are politically motivated, click bait, or fake news. I assume anything that seems to be designed to cause an emotional reaction is done for an ulterior motive. The newscasters look like actors playing a role in a bad TV show. The people in the news are trolls trying to force an error by the opposing team. Like it's April 1 and all the news stories are April fools jokes or links to The Onion. Like the world has gone mad because everyone believes the headlines ... in the National Enquirer.
Click to expand...

So few people have the time to even read the news, fewer still can factcheck. Of course its exhausting to learn that much of the news is fake, the media has always been corrupt. It's unfortunate that humanity is in such a sorry state of affairs that wanting to be informed on the choices one makes in a democracy requires fact checking our sources of information such that it may as well be a full time job.
 
Isn't there anything regarding qualifications for being president that has to do with being mentally deranged?


9462b30d-12e5-408f-9334-b7e0e5d550ff.jpg


Miss Us Yet???
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top