Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantWell i agree with the thrust of that article, as yall know.
I dont think i agree that trump is putin’s puppet though. I think putin and trump share some ideas, and disagree on some things. I think they will cooperate sometimes and will behttp://theramshuddle.com/reply/88882/edit/ at odds sometimes.
My own personal thing is…I am like Moe hearing the words “niagra falls” when i hear the DEM-msm talking about russia. Its so obviously a hypocritical bullshit stance coming from THEM. It appalls me. Sets me off. Ni..ag..ra Falls…step by step….
w
vI agree about a lot of that, WV. I don’t think Trump is Putin’s puppet, per se. But he does exhibit a strange reluctance to ever, ever criticize him by name. Trump shows no such reluctance when it comes to a host of Americans, black and brown people, NFL players, NBA players, Democrats, European leaders, NATO, the EU and the Media. And not only is he okay criticizing everyone but Putin, he seems to love going after them aggressively, viciously, and without concern for their safety. See his most recent rally and the mob surrounding Jim Acosta from CNN.
I think it’s safe to say that Trump owes a lot to Putin. The evidence points to that being the survival of the Trump family business. He had gone bankrupt six times and was pretty much down for the count. No one would lend to him, because he stiffed so many banks.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, he was buying up golf courses and other real estate with cash. Out of the blue. His son Eric said it was Russian money, and I think Mueller has all the evidence he needs to prove this.
To me, it’s always been about debt to Putin. Business arrangements. Owing a ton to him. And the illegalities involved whenever anyone deals with oligarchs from any country, including America. It’s not a question of “treason,” in my view. It’s a question of Trump’s repeated breaking of the law, before, during and after the campaign.
He needs to be held accountable.
Billy_TParticipantOf course, as ZN notes above, leftists know about what the CIA (etc.) has done, and is doing. We know about the coups, counter-coups, black sites, torture, teaching torture, Mossadegh, etc. etc. But we know this because we’ve read a critical mass of evidence. And/or we know people who have experienced these things first-hand, etc. etc. The vast majority of leftists want substantial evidence before accepting X, Y or Z as fact. This includes despicable acts by “the state,” corporate America, other nations, etc. etc.
From my observation, though, for some bizarre reason in the case of Trump and Russia-gate, that isn’t necessarily the case anymore.
In short, I see a willingness to believe, with scant to no evidence, counter-narratives to the more “mainstream” Russia/Trump news. At the same time, the same folks will often ignore or dismiss an overwhelming amount of investigative reporting that supports the crux of that news flow.
It’s always smart to be skeptical of everything we read. Obviously. It’s always smart to seek corroboration. But that also includes “alternative sources.” I think it’s a mistake to dismiss entire ranges of news sources, out of hand, while eagerly embracing counter-narratives, without due diligence. All sources require that.
Billy_TParticipantLotsa good points in that article.
A few of the most frustrating things for me, when discussing Russia-gate, especially with (a few) fellow leftists in other venues:
1. Standards of evidence, thresholds for belief in evidence, seem highly selective. As in, if a leftist reads a single article, or sees a single video, in which someone asserts “The CIA recently did X, Y and Z,” most will immediately accept this as factual. But show them 50 articles with in-depth, comprehensive break-downs of Russian connections with the Trump campaign and administration, and it’s (in so many words) “Fake news.” They won’t accept it. I’ve bumped into more than a few on other sites who refuse to read it, period, while repeating the mantra, “Prove it!!” Um, I just did.
2. There is a major issue of “whataboutism” in this case. It’s kind of like, when someone says “Second hand smoke kills 40,000 Americans a year,” another will say, “Well, 400,000 people die from smoking directly! Who cares about second-hand smoke!” Throw in “hypocrisy” and this is supposed to make us shut up about second hand smoke (Russia-gate), etc. etc. Um, we can talk about both, right?
3. Leftists who fight to dismiss, poo-pah or seek to shut down discussions regarding Russia often resort to the most absurd strawmen. In so many words, it’s “The Dems keep saying Russia has taken over and controls all American life, Trump is a traitor and a Manchurian candidate, and they keep beating the drums of war!!” Um, no. I’ve never seen any Dem express the wildly exaggerated claims pushed by this faction of leftists, and, again, the most aggressive on the Putin question are Republican Never Trumpers. It’s not even close. To me, the Dems have been far too quiet on the issue, having decided long ago to let Trump hang himself, for the most part.
Etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantI think Bernie needs to do his own study.
I wouldn’t trust the Mercatus Center to walk a dog.
I’m betting their total for additional costs is wildly exaggerated, and likely doesn’t include reductions due to zeroing out other programs. As in, if we went to Medicare for All, the government could stop taxation/payments via other programs, and wouldn’t have to cover health care providers writing off non-payment, emergency room visits, etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantJesse on, Syria and some stuff.
Good video. Ventura is correct.
And, as your article mentions, they could include the threats to annihilate Iran, which Trump recently made over Twitter.
His tariffs are un-Constitutional as well. The Constitution gives all the power over Commerce, foreign and domestic, to Congress. None is given to the president.
I’ve said it before . . . but if we zoom out, take the bird’s eye view of the two parties, and the results of their respective time in the Captain’s chair . . . we see these stark differences:
Endless war . . . or endless war
Ever expanding surveillance state (public and private) . . . or ever expanding surveillance state (public and private)
Skyrocketing inequality . . . or skyrocketing inequality
Capital over Labor . . . or Capital over Labor
Leading the world in incarceration rates . . . or leading the world in incarceration rates
etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantI bumped into this in my saved file:
Now We Know For Sure: Devin Nunes Lied About Everything Kevin DrumJul. 24, 2018 9:55 PM
Excerpt:
Generally speaking, Nunes’ contention is that (a) the entire FISA application is based on the Steele dossier, (b) the Steele dossier is a partisan pile of lies, and (c) this goes to show that the FBI had it in for the Trump campaign.
But as we can now see, virtually everything Nunes said is untrue. The FBI investigation originally started in summer 2016, when the Australian ambassador to Britain reported a conversation he had with George Papadopoulos in which Papadopoulos implied that he had Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. They were further alarmed by the very public attitude of the Trump campaign toward Russia. They had been keeping an eye on Carter Page for years at that point, and the Steele dossier’s claim that Page had spoken with Russian officials alarmed them yet further. Finally, after Page lied about those meetings, the FBI asked the FISA court for a warrant to surveil him.
The warrant was approved by a Republican judge. Not then, and at no time since, has she suggested she was duped. Ditto for the judges who signed the subsequent extensions, all of them Republicans. Finally, the sheer volume of redacted material—which grew larger in each application for extension—strongly suggests that the FBI had quite a bit of material well beyond just the Steele dossier.
Finally, it’s worth keeping in mind that the standard for a FISA warrant is “probable cause” that the target is an “agent of a foreign power.” This is not a negligible standard, but neither does it require bulletproof evidence. In this case we have Page’s known travels; his meetings with Russian officials; his own admission that he was an “informal adviser” to the Kremlin; his lie about his meetings with Sechin and Divyekin; and the contents of the Steele dossier. Plus, of course, whatever else is hiding under all those redactions. In the real world, that’s way more than enough to get approval for a surveillance warrant.
Bottom line: Devin Nunes, unsurprisingly, has lied about virtually everything he said. The Carter Page warrant was perfectly ordinary and the FBI showed no particular bias in applying for it. Nor did the judge show any bias in approving it. It was all pretty routine, and the only unusual thing about it is that presidential candidates usually don’t hire multiple advisers with unexplained connections to Russian officialdom. But Donald Trump did.
Billy_TParticipantIMO, WV, Carlson is full of shit. As is Page.
It’s also incredibly hypocritical that Carlson and other right-wingers suddenly have found their inner civil libertarian, but still won’t call for an actual overhaul of our surveillance system. They’re just upset because it’s currently focusing on their own boy.
I’m guessing you and I are pretty much on the same page, in that we need to radically rope it all in. But that’s not what Fox news hosts or Republicans in Congress are talking about. Their only concern is that the surveillance net has fallen on some folks on their team. They want it to go after their political enemies instead, and have never, ever mentioned curtailing its powers overall.
Trump, in fact, tweets for it being used against his political enemies all the time. It seems he can’t go a day without calling on Clinton or others in the Obama White House to be jailed.
Again, will post a bit more later.
Hope all is well, WV.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI watched up to nearly the eight minute mark, and took a few quick notes. Will watch a bit more later and post some more.
A key thing to keep in mind is Carlson’s view of the release of the warrant, the docs themselves, is, to be generous, highly idiosyncratic. It’s not shared beyond the right-wing bubble.
Other notes:
The Steele dossier hasn’t been discredited. Much of it has been confirmed, in fact. It was just one of many things used to get the FISA warrant on Page, and not the central rationale, by any means. That warrant was reauthorized four times, by four Republican judges, appointed by Republican presidents, btw. If they had seen problems with it, that never would have happened.
The accusation of being an agent for a foreign power is not in any way the same thing as an accusation of treason. Flynn and Manafort, for example, lied about their status as agents for foreign powers, had to redo their security forms, but are not being accused of “treason.” Page said that he was a foreign agent several times, and bragged about his connections with the Kremlin. He brought this on himself.
Carlson also lied when he said Steele was on the Clinton payroll. That never happened. Not even close.
Another key for me: I’ve never, ever heard Fox hosts or Republican Congresscritters ever give a damn about FISA warrants and the process until now. It’s only because Page might cause problems for Trump that they suddenly care about “civil liberties.” And it’s telling that on the same day the House Republicans made such a big stink about Page and the FISA warrant, they reauthorized the FISA program without changes.
Billy_TParticipantNow, does he make great points when it comes to all the rah rah praise for the FBI and various intel agencies, especially given their history? Yeah. Definitely. But, again, that’s both parties, with a carve out for Republicans who have sold their souls to protect Trump at all costs.
It can be cringe-worthy to watch that in the hearings, on C-Span, for instance, etc. Even appalling at times.
But that’s been the game for both parties for a long, long time. They’ve jockeyed for the position of “Most Patriotic evah” forever, totally misunderstanding what that means, or how it should be demonstrated. Like, “Support the Troops!!” etc. etc. How about NOT sending them into harm’s way for once?
Anyway, it’s frustrating for me to read or watch pundits from across the spectrum seemingly so out of sync with reality. In the age of Trump, it’s virtually contagious.
Billy_TParticipantIMO, the author hurts his own case by wildly exaggerating what the Dems say and do, regarding Russia. He uses classic straw men to paint a picture of rabid, unleashed hysteria, when it’s actually his own portrayal of the Dems that comes across as hysterical, at least to me.
The claim that all that is wrong with America is due to the malignant machinations of Putin is the most blatantly false, potentially disastrous bucket of bullshit ever inflicted by the matrix on this ignorant, credulous, propagandized people.
Yes, they voice concern. But I’ve actually followed this for two years, closely, far more than is healthy for me, and I’d say, if anything, the Dems don’t say enough about it. All too many of them are meek and mild in the face of it all.
The loudest, most aggressive voices have always been Republican Never-Trumpers, and it’s just not close.
IMO, the author paints a false picture when he leaves Republicans out and wildly exaggerates Dem words and deeds. I honestly don’t think he’s following this closely. I am. Too closely, as mentioned.
Billy_TParticipantI agree that Behar was good in the moment, but it seemed like McCain just talked over her. I also agree that “pedantic” won’t win hearts and minds, nor will wonkiness, a Democratic Party specialty.
But I’m st1ill not convinced that blurring the lines between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the right way to go.
What’s your take on that, WV? Do you see that as the best strategy? If not, what is your preferred method/best practices, when it comes to this topic?
=====================
Well BT, your guess is as good as mine. I dunno. I know that it depends on yer audience. Ya know. And the general tv-audience that watches THAT show is…I’m guessing… essentially MSM-Dems. Do they care about the distinction between Socialist-Dem and Dem-Socialist? I suspect that would lose their attention, and sound pedantic and the rightwinger would just roll over them with the usual “Venezuela! Stalin!” type shit.
I think Ocasio and Bernie and the Justice-Dems are getting it mostly right (given the limited Political-IQ of the voting public). They just harp on specific issues. Medicare for All. Free College. (although i think they need a better term than ‘free college.’ That term raises alarm bells with conservative types)
When the corpse-media asks them what is a socialist? Isnt it a murderous treasonous thing? They just calmly go “It means I’m for medicare for all, free college, a higher minimum wage, etc”
I wonder if it would behoove them to connect themselves with FDR? I dunno.
(I mean they arent ‘really’ socialists but who cares. They are as far left as we can go right now, today, in the US)I also think I have never ever seen a Clinton-Dem do what that lady just did in that vid. The listing of the Norwegian nations. I…have…not…seen that before in that context. Ever. To me thats…..noteworthy. And yes the vile Rep talked over it and didnt address it…which is a good sign. She couldnt handle it. That list.
w
vLotsa good points. And I think you’re right. The embrace of the Nordic model is kinda stunning — and about time. You know I’d prefer to go further than that. But, sheeesh!! Upgrading to the Scandinavian model would be relatively awesome. That ties in with the Ocasio-Cortez response too. Repeating those programs. It does make sense . . .
Which reminds me of a recent dynamic I’ve bumped into online. I think righties are getting a message to counter this. I have no proof of that. Just a hunch. They’re starting to fight back against the idea that the Scandinavia countries are “socialist,” calling them capitalist, social welfare nations instead. They point to Venezuela as a real socialist nation, even though we all know it’s not. So, strangely enough, they get this partially correct, but for obviously sick reasons.
Basically, if it’s not a “Stalinist hell hole” of one variety or another, in their eyes, it’s not “socialist.”
Which brings me to another stance I think makes a ton of sense: We just shouldn’t care what righties think about these things. It really doesn’t matter and they’re not going to be persuaded by anything we say to begin with. Evah. IMO, our focus should be on winning hearts and minds that can be won.
That’s not right of center — with extremely rare exceptions. As in, virtually non-existent.
Billy_TParticipantI want the GOP wiped out, btw. I want that party permanently crippled. Democrats would serve nicely as the conservative party since they are to the right of St. Ronald anyway. Then maybe DSA could become the second major party. I can dream.
That’s my view as well, Zooey.
The Dems have been the real “conservative party” for the last forty plus years. The GOP basically purged its actual conservatives and is now pretty much “hard right,” with a few exceptions.
It would be fantastic to see the DSA replace the Dems, as the Dems replace the GOP. More leftist voices too, the unaffiliated, etc. etc. They’d likely caucus with DSA.
For once in our lives, we’d very likely get to witness an actual “national conversation” with some depth and breadth to it, instead of the usual A to B range. Logically, action would follow the new pattern. Hopefully, at least.
Billy_TParticipantOne Thing i liked though, was when the Pro-Hillary-liberal was challenged with the usual “Where has socialism ever worked?”, she calmly listed Scandanavian nations. She didnt get all flustered or get all pedantic and boring. It was a good answer. And coming from her, it shocked me to be honest. I took it as a sign maybe the libs are getting a little better at this socialism discussion thing. I dunno.
w
vI agree that Behar was good in the moment, but it seemed like McCain just talked over her. I also agree that “pedantic” won’t win hearts and minds, nor will wonkiness, a Democratic Party specialty.
But I’m still not convinced that blurring the lines between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the right way to go.
What’s your take on that, WV? Do you see that as the best strategy? If not, what is your preferred method/best practices, when it comes to this topic?
Billy_TParticipant<groan> I don’t know if I should even watch that.
It’s probably like watching a 9ers fan and a Seahawk fan talk about the Rams.
That’s a pretty sharp observation, Nittany.
It would be like organizing a panel on the latest scientific theories in X field, without inviting a single scientist of any kind, in any field, to join in.
No scientists, anywhere. Just non-scientists, acting as if they knew what they were talking about.
Socialists are never asked to be a part of discussions on socialism. Yeah, that makes sense.
Billy_TParticipantI still wish someone would bring this up in these “debates,” when people try to scare the audience with the S word.
Guess who called themselves democratic socialists, audience? Guess who wrote essays and books on the subject, and led social and economic justice movements as democratic socialists? Guess who led peace movements and human rights campaigns as democratic socialists?
MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, Helen Keller, Dorothy Day, Camus, Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Andrei Sakharov and Michael Harrington, to name just a few.
Oooo, scary!!
Billy_TParticipantThat was painful. I don’t think the video host did a very good job, either.
He completely whiffed on the slow pitch about Venezuela, which is the go-to country for righties who know absolutely nothing about socialism.
It’s not rocket science. Venezuela is a capitalist country. Its economy is for-profit and the vast majority is in private hands. Which means, by definition, it’s not a socialist country. You can’t be both. It’s one or the other. Capitalism or socialism.
Socialism, in fact, by extending democracy to the economy, democratizing it, changing the ownership of the means of production from the few to everyone, eliminates all traces of capitalism.
It can’t exist in that environment. It can’t exist under actual democracy. It’s something else.
The host is correct about McCain, though. She only gets these gigs cuz of her father. I’ve actually never heard her make a valid point about anything, despite her massive advantages growing up super-rich and in the thick of world events.
Anyway . . . the main problem with these discussions on TV is pretty obvious: They never allow actual socialists on air.
Billy_TParticipantAm watching it now. Pretty awesome first car chase scene.
I remember a friend telling me they saw it in the theater and it was very good.
I watched a movie on some strange cable channel last night called “Roger Waters’ The Wall”. It was a combination of concert footage and some deeply personal Roger Waters stuff. I admire him more than before I saw it (and he was pretty high up there to begin with).
Not only dis his dad die in WW2 when he was very young, his grandfather died in WW1 when his dad was 2. He went and visited the memorials in between the tour.
Ugg, Kevin Spacy…
Let the board know what you think about it, here, if possible.
Yeah, Waters is cool. He’s a “democratic socialist” too.
;>)
Hope all is well —
Billy_TParticipantLink: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/us/america-poverty-un-report/index.html
A follow up to that is the recent OECD study on workers and comparisons between countries.
No surprise. America ranks near the bottom on most metrics.
Several key charts in the article:
One example:
Billy_TParticipantWV,
Side-note on earlier comments. Please don’t take my sometimes annoying persistence on these issues as anything personal. It’s not. It’s me being incredibly frustrated by external events. Not with you. Not with anyone here. No way, no how.
Knowing I have zero control over them just makes it all the worse for wear. This is just me trying to get myself out of dark places via various means at hand. One of them is the Internet and forums like this.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
Thanks for bringing up one of the most appalling aspects of the Helsinki meeting. Trump actually supports — if we take him at his word — turning over dissidents and critics of the Putin regime, to Putin. One being the former ambassador, McFaul, and the other being Crowder, whom Putin has long tried to kill.
(I may not have this right, but I think it’s eleven people total so far.)
This is a key video, IMO. This state department spokesperson likely isn’t going to last at that position much longer, given her words and her independence. She strikes me as a very brave person and I’m pulling for her.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, I think it’s pretty difficult to measure the bigger or the biggest gangsters from that list. It’s at least open to debate.
While I’d say our foreign policy is the most destructive in the world over time, when it comes to individual responsibility and its implications, it gets trickier. As in, the blame is spread around in our system more than it is in Russia’s.
On just the wealth issue, Putin crushes the four presidents mentioned. He’s reportedly worth 200 billion or more, and he gained all of that money while being a “public servant.” He has near total control over his military and intel agencies, unlike our presidents, so when they act, it’s pretty much directly on him.
Trump, the next richest on the list, likely isn’t worth as much as he claims, which is more than 10 billion — it’s more likely in the few hundred million range. Bush in roughly in the 100-200 million range. Clinton in the 30 million range. Obama in the few million range. Maybe five.
So on money alone, Putin has from 500 times to 50,000 times the Americans listed, and, again, he has far more direct control over foreign (and domestic) policy.
I guess this is a bit like arguing over who was the best running back in NFL history, though with obviously far greater stakes. But I thought your comment was worth one of my (typically annoying) responses, nonetheless.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantAt any rate, what about the NATO thing. You seem to think russia is an aggressor — what about the NATO thing. Seems to me its the West thats the aggressor.
I remember reading about the missile defense systems awhile ago and I thought the same thing: Is this a good idea? Was it necessary? It does seem to be a poke at them. And it clearly pisses them off. I’m open to questioning that. But even IF that happened, I don’t expect Putin would suddenly shake our hand. Putin’s #1 interest is the same as Trump’s: himself..
===================
Well, I like the way Paul Jay of real news network put it in a vid. He said American oligarchs are the enemies of Americans. And russian oligarchs are the enemies of Russians. Basically just a simple class argument. Thats how I look at it. I dont think of ‘russia’ as ‘our enemy’.
Putin’s a gangster. Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush are bigger gangsters.w
vIf Russian oligarchs run complex operations to disrupt our election system, and pit American against American via social media — which they did — then they’re our “enemies” too.
These things can all be the case at the same time:
1. American oligarchs are our enemies
2. Russian oligarchs are the enemies of the Russian people
3. American oligarchs can be the enemies of people all over the world
4. Russian oligarchs can be the enemies of people all over the world.IMO, there is no reason to limit it to an impact on just their own countries, and I have a feeling that Paul Jay doesn’t do that for American power. Nor should he. So why the limit for Russia power?
Billy_TParticipantHe does the ‘context’ thing. In the context of what the US does regularly, the russia thing is just not a major story.
I have to say I don’t buy that either.
I didn’t ruin any democracies abroad. Some american governments did that. I would like to vote against that kind of thing in fact. So I don’t want the system I vote in to be screwed so that it serves the interests of yet another autocratic imperial state, and I don’t concede anything to that other autocratic state and give up on the idea of voting and being invested in democracy just because some american governments I opposed did stuff too.
Speaking just for myself but I also think echoing the sentiments of many others, I don’t live in a glass house when it comes to that. So I can throw all the stones I need to. At Trump, at Nixon, at Pinochet, at Putin. I don’t feel like excusing any single one of them.
…
I agree with all of that. I can’t understand why we’re supposed to just take it on the chin, directly, we the people, because of what our government has done in the past. How does it make any sense for us to go fetal with regard to our own election system and social media, because of the history of conflict between nations? The belief that “hypocrisy” is strong enough to force that upon rank and file Americans strikes me as bizarre at best, and at least self-indulgent and self-serving as theory. And it’s mostly in that realm, IMO. In the realm of abstractions, not the concrete.
Oh, well. I’m rambling.
I hope others add their thoughts tonight and tomorrow. It’s an important topic.
Billy_TParticipantBut Noam’s interview was prior to the latest indictments from Mueller. There’s more information now to deal with. I don’t think he would be as dismissive of Russian interference after reading them.
==============
Well the vid says it was published on July 4. When were the indictments? (the vid is in the other thread i started — did you watch it?)
And in the vid he doesnt dismiss the russia story. He says it probably happened — he just doesnt think its a major story. He does the ‘context’ thing. In the context of what the US does regularly, the russia thing is just not a major story.
w
vThe indictments came out this past Friday. So after that video. I watched most of it. I think I had to go after he talked about the environmental damage being done by Trump and the GOP, which I thought was well said.
To me, how can it not be a major story? An election system hacked, voter information stolen, voter registration systems hacked, DNC information stolen and leaked to Wikileaks, which, like Russia, wanted to tilt the election toward Trump. Not to mention tens of millions of Facebook users and their data stolen in order to swing elections and divide the nation.
That’s not a major event? And to make it even bigger, it’s ongoing. Trump’s own appointee, Dan Coats, a life-long Republican, says we’re at pre-9-11 threat levels, as far as cyber attacks go. It may be hyperbole. Who knows? But at the very least, it’s worth serious hardening of our election system.
I want to say more about this, in general, but will refrain for now. Rough day, and time for me to get some rest.
Hope all is well.
Billy_TParticipantI think this is very disturbing for many reasons.
But the worst thing about this is that I think it pushes us CLOSER to military conflict with Russia. There is already a huge backlash coming and if it isn’t this congress, it will be the next president who will feel the need to be VERY tough on Russia to make up for this. This may even be an extreme reaction which will cause a bad reaction. And who knows where it goes from there.
Trump is moving the goalposts for what is acceptable by Russia. Putin will test that.
And then? Who knows? It won’t be good.
Me? I think the sole purpose for that meeting, in private, without witnesses, was because Trump needed more help from Putin. I have no doubt they spent most of that time cooking up ways to keep Trump out of jail, to shift the blame to other parties, especially the Dems, and that this will involve the creation of new waves of “fake news” and a “false flag” or too.
And I don’t see the above as hyperbole or paranoia. I see it as just being realistic about our sociopath in chief.
It’s not that Trump has chosen Russia over America. It’s that he, as always, chooses himself and his business interests over any country. His time with Putin is purely transactional, from his point of view. He desperately needs outside help and Putin is more than willing to give it to him — in exchange for things like the end of sanctions, the erosion of NATO, the erosion of the EU, which Trump likely wants regardless of Putin anyway. He actually called the EU a foe of America in recent days.
We live in mad times.
Billy_TParticipantTrump is moving the goalposts for what is acceptable by Russia. Putin will test that.
And then? Who knows? It won’t be good.
===================
Well, I look at it like, yeah he’s moving the goalposts.. towards peace with russia.
And yeah, i think Dem warhawks and coldwarriors like Hillary will move the goalposts the other way when they get the chance. But i dont blame trump for that.
Listen to Noam on Russia. What do you think of his recounting of how the US/Nato has moved first-strike missiles country by country right up to Russia’s border. Despite the fact the US said it wouldnt do that.
w
vBut Noam’s interview was prior to the latest indictments from Mueller. There’s more information now to deal with. I don’t think he would be as dismissive of Russian interference after reading them.
IMO, we already had mountains of evidence to show that it was a serious and widespread attack on our elections, and a coordinated attempt to sow division among Americans. But the latest indictments go into great detail about this, name names, etc. They show the election system itself was attacked, voter records hacked, voter registration hacked, and the DNC hacked to the point where they gained access to the Dems’ own oppo research. Oppo research on themselves, as both major political parties tend to create as a way to preempt attacks from their opponents.
It really makes no sense to me why anyone would be dismissive of this and suggest we do nothing. Who benefits from that? Who gets hurt? We the people get hurt from attacks on our elections. And no one benefits from turning the other cheek but Trump, the GOP and Putin.
Seriously. It baffles me that NC would be so cavalier. IMO, none of his rationales make any sense when it comes to that. Goddess bless him for all he’s done for leftists, but on this issue, I think he has a serious blind spot.
Billy_TParticipantTo me, good writers think in terms of how their writing works as speech, as spoken English — if English is the language in question, of course. They think in terms of breaths, rhythm, structure, flow, and how others hear that. They think about the best way to make this comprehensible for the listener.
Both/and. Written and spoken. But reading it aloud is a great way to make it work for both. With exceptions, a sentence, a paragraph, a page that sounds good, looks good on the page too.
One of the patterns I see in this kind of bad, academic writing is the lack of any concern for that. There is almost no concern for breaths, rhythm, flow. Most sentences are way too long, virtually breathless, and contain too much proposed information for the sentence structure to handle/support. They need to be broken up. Antitrust lawsuits should apply.
Also — and I admit this is a personal bias — the “verbing” of words is overdone and distracts from the points made. For me, it actually obscures those points. This is different from using field-specific jargon like scientific and mathematical terms, where no other word suffices. I think it’s a conscious effort to throw things out of whack with no real gain in overall understanding for the reader.
They need to cut that out!!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantTo show how old I’m getting, and how my mind wanders these days, I searched for one of those bad writing prize winners:
https://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/writing.html
Professor Butler’s first-prize sentence appears in “Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time,” an article in the scholarly journal Diacritics (1997):
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
It also helps or hurts that I just finished reading a short collection of essays by Dwight Macdonald. A seriously persnickety leftist, the essays are mostly from the 1950s and 60s.
Some of his critique struck me as overdone, with far too many examples of bad writing and bad thinking, especially when it came to changes in dictionaries back then, or “Great Books” projects, or revisions to the King James Bible. I got the idea early on and just didn’t need all of those examples, etc. Most of the essays were really good, though.
There’s a perfect parody of Hemingway, for example, and his theory of Masscult and Midcult is fascinating. It’s sometimes good for us to know that we aren’t the first people to “get” certain aspects of our culture, or to be turned off by them. A lot of that predates us.
Billy_TParticipantOk, one of youz smart people — dum this down for me. What does it say?
“….A decolonial approach would necessitate moving past the individualistic liberal ontology underpinning much of feminism today, including some strands of intersectionality. This entails problematizing the assumption that the subject is always erased from the analysis, thus producing a myth about universal and objective knowledge. Instead, “critical border thinking” can be employed, which is a form of subaltern epistemology that does not hide the epistemic positionality of the subject speaking.[5] This allows for decolonial interpretative communities to be produced that challenge Western notions of universality, neutrality and linear evolution. By critically deconstructing Western concepts and structures that have been normalized, the first step towards dismantling them has been taken.[6]…”
Just going by that quote — I didn’t click on the link yet — I’d say the writer is a really bad writer, and thinks they can make up for their lack of language skills with waves of jargon. Judith Butler used to win awards for this kind of thing. Awards that you’d generally want to avoid.
I’m feeling like quite the curmudgeon today, for some reason!!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantAlso, WV,
I know we disagree on this issue, and I also know that’s fine. As the young kids used to say, it’s all good. But I honestly think Trump never asked him about the election interference, because they both know they’ve been colluding since 2015 at least. They both know Trump and the GOP want more help this year and in 2020, too, and I’m betting they discussed new methods for this.
Trump, in private, one on one, can stop the charade and just talk to Putin as one gangster to another. Yeah, I’m betting they both had some good belly laughs about all of that. But my gut tells me it’s not due to what most Americans likely think it was.
And, to me, it’s not about geopolitics. It’s not really about “America versus Russia.” It’s about Trump avoiding jail and/or devastating shots to his business empire.
I don’t see this as “We need to get revenge on Russia!!” Far, far from it. I want peace too. I see it as people needing to be held accountable for their crimes, and I find the practice immoral and indefensible. I don’t think it should stand. I don’t think we should let people get away with doing what Trump did, evah.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
