This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
91
« on: December 12, 2016, 11:53:06 AM »
What I find confusing is that people are OK with an adversarial foreign power meddling in our election just because their guy won.
It's not confusing at all.
Some people clearly place a higher value on having their chosen president than they do on having a 'clean' election. Like when the Bolsheviks dissolved the National Assembly in 1917 after losing.
Dodgy? Sure. Confusing? Not at all. People just value things differently. And it's pretty evident that a lot of Trump voters believe a Clinton presidency, rightly or wrongly, would be worse for America than Russia leaking some emails.
cynical but true
92
« on: December 12, 2016, 11:51:12 AM »
Some of the jobs "saved" will ultimately be replaced by robots.
93
« on: December 11, 2016, 09:55:58 PM »
It is only dangerous if you consider the implications it has for the sacred institution of democracy.
Of course, I also understand that the US is not 100% democratic and that the holders of representative offices are largely decided by the results of massive propaganda campaigns funded by wealthy businessmen and special interests groups, both domestic and foreign, so I don't expect your average joe to know the implications of his choice and I can't really blame him for it. Which is why I'm not crying over the election of a candidate who has promoted policies favorable to an "enemy" country as opposed to a candidate who was taking money from every country she could get a "speaking gig" in. You can't really damage the integrity of an institution that had none in the first place. No. It is always dangerous. It's an ideology that demands fellow countrymen be recognized as enemy combatants and threats to the nation overnight. You keep using the word "democracy" but then depict it as factional warfare where honest mistakes, an inability to foresee the future, and a simple lack of information are all that's necessary for civilians exercising their freedom of speech to become public enemy #1. It blurs the line between the private individual and public institutions to the point that they are somehow one in the same. It is a tremendously distorted view of US institutions that has zero basis in reality. I don't really feel like I'm on anybody's team and therefore I don't think "defecting" is something I can do. I don't feel represented by the US gov't or any other government and I don't feel like I have an obligation to defend it. I think loyalty is owed firstly to God and then to tribe or nation, not to any particular state or regime. I wasn't sure, because you've spent this entire thread advocating for the collapse of US institutions by a foreign power. I don't love Putin or his government. I don't like a lot of what he's done domestically or on the world stage. But when he does something right, he does something right.
You really think a country that assassinates opposition journalists is going to "do right" by the world by contributing to freedom of information? You're beyond delusional. You need professional help.
94
« on: December 11, 2016, 09:21:37 PM »
Do you or do you not believe in democratic government?
Of course I would not blame you personally for the actions of the US government any more than I would blame myself. But if you endorse representative democracy, the system pushed in the US, you are effectively backing the notion that you are in some way accountable.
You simply cannot have it both ways. Do the people have the right to a measure of control over the state? If they are given the reigns, via elected representatives or whatever else, they are accountable. You cannot one day demand the voice of the people be heard, and the next day shrink from responsibility when that voice elects a villain. The notion that voting for someone is the same as being directly responsible for their actions is a dangerous and foolish one. Should we imprison everyone who voted for Bill Janklow? (The only correct answer is no.) You have extremely nonsensical concepts of democracy and the burden of responsibility. The US government's foreign policy since the fall of the Soviet Union has made it quite clear that the only justification needed for any action is the means to carry it out.
I think you're being melodramatic as fuck, too.
I'm being melodramatic? You can defect any time you like, pal.
95
« on: December 11, 2016, 08:26:50 PM »
This is the nature of democratic election. Yes, when you elect a politician, he is your representative. You are accountable for what he does, because you voted for him. "But what if I didn't vote for him?", you might ask. Well, too fucking bad, the democratist will say, you lost the election. This is one of the many reasons why democracy is stupid and gay. I'm sorry, I didn't know I was personally responsible for the actions of military and intelligence officials who may have been appointed by people I didn't vote for, and are insulated from political influence by having (or not having) term limits independent of the president or Congress, even if a) I was not yet a legal voter, or b) I was not born yet, when the relevant election took place. Officials may be "representatives" as a ceremonial title, but being represented by them is in no way a tacit endorsement of everything and anything they do. What you're describing is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination, especially not that of the United States. Furthermore, I have no control over someone else's free will, so my "guilt" for anything and everything they do is something you pulled out of your sphincter. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Russia should not face retribution for this alleged transgression until the United States faces retribution for its own. You can pretend there are no rules and no laws all you want, if you have the power to bend or break them. But if you do, there will come a time when someone is able to bend the law at your expense, and you will wish dearly that you had not set a precedent for them. I mean, jesus christ man, look at the language you use. "russia should go unpunished", as if the US and its vassals get to make up the rules of international relations as they go along, and anyone who refuses to play along is a child in need of a spanking.
Russia may have committed an act of war against the United States. An eye for an eye is not a valid justification for their actions.
96
« on: December 11, 2016, 07:48:25 PM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.
>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election
nice ethical bankruptcy
No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.
You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.
Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.
If subversion is a form of interference, US officials really have no ground to stand on by calling out Russia.
It's not like the USG hasn't done the same, but I don't think that's an excuse.
the US has done far worse than what Russia is accused of doing in this case.
And while I don't really believe the Russians have done shit, even if they did, this is kind of a "get what's coming to you" moment. If the United States wants to continue pursuing foreign policy that violates international law and the integrity and inner workings of sovereign nations, its leaders have no business crying when the same things befall them. I think it's a fine excuse.
I don't give a fuck if the Russians did interfere in our election because I don't support our government trying to make decisions for the rest of the world. Iraq was a fucking crime, Libya was a fucking crime, Syria is a botched crime still in progress.
I believe in the sovereignty of independent states, and I'd like my own to be sovereign, but I can't really advocate for that when the officials that are supposed to represent me are trying to establish a global hegemony, with their fingers in everyone else's pies.
Hypocrisy on behalf of the US is not a justification for another country doing the same. (I am not defending the US' meddling in other countries' elections.)
It isn't a justification for, say, Zambia doing it to Chile, but it is entirely reasonable to give the US a taste of its own medicine.
A side-effect of your position is the normalization Truly normalization is the most heinous crime of 2016.
of this kind of behavior and letting it going unpunished. The US shouldn't do it, nor should any other country. Unfortunately, the US is doing it, and will continue to do it unless A) the US is crippled geopolitically or B) an isolationist regime takes power (the latter may have just happened, we'll see)
If Russia did interfere in the election, it should be punished regardless of whatever the US is guilty of itself. Violation of sovereignty is one of the highest crimes a country can commit against another.
LMAO fuck off. Russia allegedly did it in order to cockblock a politician hellbent on starting "democratic revolutions" in every country not trading in USD and enslaving itself to the IMF. If it really happened, this would have been a violation of sovereignty done in order to prevent further violation of everyone's sovereignty.
There is no "regardless of whatever the US is guilty of", because a humongous chunk of the geopolitical assfuckery in the world right now, including this, is a result of shit the US political establishment is guilty of. None of these people have any right to start pointing fingers at Russia, given their own treatment of countries that would prefer to stay out of the USA's sphere of influence, as well as their quite open ties to states like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Nobody in the media pressing this red scare shit seems to have been half as concerned about Clinton's relationship with the Saudis or the Chinese (the latter having been a common concern during Bill's presidency). That says a lot to me.
You're arguing that: 1) The entire population of the United States, a sovereign nation, deserved to have its democratic election disrupted as retribution for its government's actions abroad, despite that many of those actions are completely secret and unaccountable, and not necessarily endorsed by the citizenry, due to the nature of espionage 2) Russia should go completely unpunished for this transgression, assuming they did it Are you legitimately brain damaged?
97
« on: December 11, 2016, 05:55:33 PM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.
>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election
nice ethical bankruptcy
No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.
You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.
Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.
If subversion is a form of interference, US officials really have no ground to stand on by calling out Russia.
It's not like the USG hasn't done the same, but I don't think that's an excuse.
the US has done far worse than what Russia is accused of doing in this case.
And while I don't really believe the Russians have done shit, even if they did, this is kind of a "get what's coming to you" moment. If the United States wants to continue pursuing foreign policy that violates international law and the integrity and inner workings of sovereign nations, its leaders have no business crying when the same things befall them. I think it's a fine excuse.
I don't give a fuck if the Russians did interfere in our election because I don't support our government trying to make decisions for the rest of the world. Iraq was a fucking crime, Libya was a fucking crime, Syria is a botched crime still in progress.
I believe in the sovereignty of independent states, and I'd like my own to be sovereign, but I can't really advocate for that when the officials that are supposed to represent me are trying to establish a global hegemony, with their fingers in everyone else's pies.
Hypocrisy on behalf of the US is not a justification for another country doing the same. (I am not defending the US' meddling in other countries' elections.) A side-effect of your position is the normalization of this kind of behavior and letting it going unpunished. The US shouldn't do it, nor should any other country. If Russia did interfere in the election, it should be punished regardless of whatever the US is guilty of itself. Violation of sovereignty is one of the highest crimes a country can commit against another.
98
« on: December 11, 2016, 04:00:48 PM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.
>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election
nice ethical bankruptcy
No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.
You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.
Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.
If subversion is a form of interference, US officials really have no ground to stand on by calling out Russia.
It's not like the USG hasn't done the same, but I don't think that's an excuse.
99
« on: December 11, 2016, 03:58:56 PM »
I remembered it as democracy.
100
« on: December 11, 2016, 03:57:08 PM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.
>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election
nice ethical bankruptcy
No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.
You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.
Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.
. . .
Yeah, I know. My point is that subversion is a specific form of interference. The space of actions that can be defined as interference is bigger than the space that can be defined as subversive.
...oh yeah sorry
101
« on: December 11, 2016, 03:06:18 PM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.
>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election
nice ethical bankruptcy
No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.
You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.
Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.
102
« on: December 11, 2016, 12:32:32 PM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.
>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election nice ethical bankruptcy
103
« on: December 11, 2016, 09:09:56 AM »
I hear a lot about this Russian-pushed 'fake news' but I don't think I've ever actually seen any.
I think it's mostly an establishment buzzword to explain why it's not Democrats' fault for losing. (Hint: they picked a weak candidate) Don't take the bait, though.
104
« on: December 11, 2016, 08:40:56 AM »
inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"
Having said that, keep in mind attribution is not an exact science, and it's possible the IC could be wrong.
105
« on: December 11, 2016, 08:33:50 AM »
No. Never will.
A foreign power interfered with our election.
To me? Anyone who defends that may as well move to that country. I refuse to ride Putin's cock
>when you have zero evidence but believe it anyway
this is why I use the word cuck unironically
Believe what you will in the face of evidence. Maybe you shill for Trump. I don't care. Our election was tampered with. If you're ok with that, then there's little I can do to change your mind. Just gotta ask: when you ride Putin's cock, is it reverse cowgirl or do you look into his eyes when he cums in you?
This is serious board, stupid liberal shill. You still have zero evidence on your side. But skepticism makes me a Russian apologist/Kremlin agent? Gotcha.
106
« on: December 10, 2016, 11:27:04 PM »
No. Never will.
A foreign power interfered with our election.
To me? Anyone who defends that may as well move to that country. I refuse to ride Putin's cock
>when you have zero evidence but believe it anyway this is why I use the word cuck unironically
107
« on: December 10, 2016, 11:16:46 PM »
Ummm...
When every single news source, when our own government, when every single non-affiliated group says "Russia spread fake news" you still defend it?
I think you should put the tinfoil away.
Look, taking the adage of "never trust anyone over 30" is cool, but come on. Stop denying the literal Everest of evidence in front of you.
>"advocating skepticism of claims made without evidence makes one a tinfoil hatter"
Um...
I'd like to see this "Everest of evidence," thank you very much.
You post sn Alt Right Blog?
Way to prove me right, bro.
LMAO
Gleen Greenwald is not alt-right by any stretch of the imagination.
Make that font as big as you want. It doesn't prove you right.
Russian shill.
I may be s drunken troll, but I am an AMERICAN drunken troll
Alcohol has clearly left you with permanent brain damage.
Booty. Halo Wars. Nutella. Info Wars.
just stop
108
« on: December 10, 2016, 11:14:19 PM »
Ummm...
When every single news source, when our own government, when every single non-affiliated group says "Russia spread fake news" you still defend it?
I think you should put the tinfoil away.
Look, taking the adage of "never trust anyone over 30" is cool, but come on. Stop denying the literal Everest of evidence in front of you.
>"advocating skepticism of claims made without evidence makes one a tinfoil hatter"
Um...
I'd like to see this "Everest of evidence," thank you very much.
You post sn Alt Right Blog?
Way to prove me right, bro.
LMAO
Gleen Greenwald is not alt-right by any stretch of the imagination.
Make that font as big as you want. It doesn't prove you right.
Russian shill.
I may be s drunken troll, but I am an AMERICAN drunken troll
Alcohol has clearly left you with permanent brain damage.
109
« on: December 10, 2016, 11:11:06 PM »
Ummm...
When every single news source, when our own government, when every single non-affiliated group says "Russia spread fake news" you still defend it?
I think you should put the tinfoil away.
Look, taking the adage of "never trust anyone over 30" is cool, but come on. Stop denying the literal Everest of evidence in front of you.
>"advocating skepticism of claims made without evidence makes one a tinfoil hatter"
Um...
I'd like to see this "Everest of evidence," thank you very much.
You post sn Alt Right Blog?
Way to prove me right, bro.
LMAO
Gleen Greenwald is not alt-right by any stretch of the imagination.
110
« on: December 10, 2016, 11:07:00 PM »
Ummm...
When every single news source, when our own government, when every single non-affiliated group says "Russia spread fake news" you still defend it?
I think you should put the tinfoil away.
Look, taking the adage of "never trust anyone over 30" is cool, but come on. Stop denying the literal Everest of evidence in front of you.
>"advocating skepticism of claims made without evidence makes one a tinfoil hatter" Um...I'd like to see this "Everest of evidence," thank you very much.
111
« on: December 10, 2016, 08:46:45 PM »
Most reports say that Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson will be announced as Trump's pick next week
With John Bolton as his number 2.
112
« on: December 10, 2016, 10:56:29 AM »
>Would you like to purchase WinRAR? dead
113
« on: December 10, 2016, 10:40:51 AM »
I had other notions in my post but I'm kinda garbled at the moment to properly explain where I'm getting at.
My thinking is more along the lines that news outlets should be responsible for reporting what's up and nothing more. If you want to go to a fact check section than that's fine too, but keep it seperate. It seems like today there's too much personal opinion involved in reporting events rather than actually just reporting them for what they are at base value.
And, while there's panels and sections devoted for discussion on events hosted by news networks, we come back to the issue of being heavily biased and leaning in favor towards one side. This ends up making a collection of news networks doing the whole "my side your side" bullshit so much that now you have to personally fact check what the news is spewing to verify their slanted content.
So what's worse? An outlet not calling anybody out on their bullshit but merely showing the statement at face value? Or an outlet that leans in favor to a certain side and never really shows the whole deal up front? Personally, watching networks perpetreate the "my side your side" mentality that seems to be going around in force these days is agonizing.
I just want to listen to what's up. Not have to fact check what the fuck the news is saying because I know that they aren't actually telling the whole story.
I for one don't think fact-based reporting should be an opt-in service.
114
« on: December 10, 2016, 01:22:22 AM »
Kupe pulled a comment and dash. Great. Was hoping to hear the reasoning on that.
Oh, sorry >.> Plus, think about it. An unbiased news source would bore most people. They'd get straight to the point, take no sides while making a general informative statement about the event, and be done.
I'd argue against journalists being mere stenographers.
Why?
They're doing a disservice to their readers by uncritically repeating, and/or not fact-checking, claims being made, especially by authority figures. Simply repeating what someone else said does not paint an accurate picture of reality. One recent egregious example was Trump claiming some 3 million votes were cast illegally to give Clinton better numbers in the popular vote. He gave zero evidence to substantiate this dramatic claim of voter fraud. Simply reporting that he said it and not calling out his horseshit is bad journalism. Likewise, there's claims that the USG is very confident about Russian involvement in the election, but there remains zero evidence publicly available to substantiate the claim. Any article worth its salt should point out that fact, but many don't. In both cases, the journalists who ran the stenographer angle should hang their heads in shame--it's a pathetic subservience to authority figures, plus they contributed to the election cycle's 'fake news.' EDIT: I kind of goofed this post because I got logged out by accident. I forgot part of what I'd already typed so I fudged it. I hope no one quotes this before I finish editing. (I don't know if that's what Sandy meant when he made his post, but there you go.)
115
« on: December 09, 2016, 11:59:10 PM »
116
« on: December 09, 2016, 11:55:29 PM »
I prefer taking showers.
preach
117
« on: December 09, 2016, 11:51:22 PM »
Plus, think about it. An unbiased news source would bore most people. They'd get straight to the point, take no sides while making a general informative statement about the event, and be done.
I'd argue against journalists being mere stenographers.
118
« on: December 09, 2016, 09:34:30 PM »
Everything's going to have a slant, but the trick is to find a balance of opinions you do like and those you may not, though I'm admittedly having a bit of trouble with the latter. Don't just read the same handful of sources, either. For general news, sometimes I'll just Google search a topic and read a few pieces to get a complete picture, because the MSM isn't always reliable, and then check out the same news on my usual list of sources. As for those specific sources, here are the main ones in no particular order: The InterceptThe NationThe Wall Street JournalReutersDemocracy Now!NPRI'm always looking for suggestions.
119
« on: December 08, 2016, 11:52:45 AM »
Kinda offtopic but why were those sweeping surveillance bills passed in both the US and UK in the first place? And why were they passed at roughly the exact same time? Haven't they already been getting away with spying and hacking into our personal devices since 2001? What more could they possibly need.
As I understand it, in both countries the courts were saying the practices were illegal. The governments simply made them legal.
120
« on: December 08, 2016, 10:36:08 AM »
More Thiel associates joining the transition team, and another one may become FDA head.
|
Show Posts