For the Dumb Liberals, Especially Progressives

[dust]

The entire article was ridiculous (that should be obvious starting right off the bat)

 

Why?

 

Right off the bat, why? Because you refuse to believe anything bad about Trump, so any article making these kinds of claims must be wrong right off the bat?

 

 

The entire article was ridiculous (that should be obvious starting right off the bat)...but its point was to insinuate that Trump is placed by Putin and/or is his puppet, and it attempts to appear legitimate in proving that viewpoint.

 

The intent is not to claim that Trump is a puppet going back to the '70s and that everything he's ever done was directed by Russia. In terms of Trump, the intent is to claim that Trump's existence is good for Putin's plans and that Putin has been doing his best to elevate Trump. In general, the article shows just how involved Putin is in supporting certain undesirable factions across Europe and America.

 

I'm not here to defend Slate as an entity -- I couldn't care less about it. But the article makes many valid points, and nobody has actually negated any of them. You prefer to make general claims about the nature of the article's intent without actually talking about what it says. That's dishonest.

 

You've turned my original comment into a conversation about Slate's trustworthiness, which is also dishonest. This conversation should be about what we know and can deduce.

 

Perhaps someone would care to link to a source full of information showing how Putin is a wonderful guy with no sour intentions towards Europe and America?

 

 

 

To point out an obvious falsehood which appears as truth in the article, it cites the (fake) news about how the Russians did the recent hacking leaks. There's been absolutely no evidence provided for that, and good reasons to believe it's a lie...but the people at Slate have taken it as truth and cite it without flinching.

 

Coming from a guy who believed Pizzagate right off the bat based on a half-assed wordpress post, this is a bit rich. Yes, I was swayed by it a little at first also, but the entire lack of proof soon became obvious.

 

There's no proof of the Russian hacks (do you expect there to be, or that it would be released if there was?), but a bit of reasoning suggests a lot.

 

1) Someone was able to hack the DNC, Hillary's e-mails, Podesta's e-mails, etc multiple times. So we are not talking about a dude in his mum's basement. We are talking about lots of people, money, and organization. That basically narrows things down to big countries and big IT corporations.

 

2) These hackers did not attack Hillary in the Primaries, or anytime before or after the election. So this is not against Clinton's policies or her corruption -- this is for Trump.

 

3) The only major power in the World that likes Trump is Russia. It wasn't anyone from the EU, China, India... big IT companies hate Trump, South Americans hate Trump, Africans don't have the power and also hate Trump. So this basically narrows things down to Russia.

 

4) Before being elected, Trump was consistent on almost nothing. He contradicted himself so many times, you can't even try to count. But he was 100% consistent on being friendly to Russia. Even when it hurt him.

 

5) After being elected, Trump put people with Russian ties into power.

 

Who was it, if it wasn't Russia? And what are these "good reasons to believe it's a lie"?

Edited January 1, 2017 by dust

[ralis]

Why?

 

Right off the bat, why? Because you refuse to believe anything bad about Trump, so any article making these kinds of claims must be wrong right off the bat?

 

 

 

 

The intent is not to claim that Trump is a puppet going back to the '70s and that everything he's ever done was directed by Russia. In terms of Trump, the intent is to claim that Trump's existence is good for Putin's plans and that Putin has been doing his best to elevate Trump. In general, the article shows just how involved Putin is in supporting certain undesirable factions across Europe and America.

 

I'm not here to defend Slate as an entity -- I couldn't care less about it. But the article makes many valid points, and nobody has actually negated any of them. You prefer to make general claims about the nature of the article's intent without actually talking about what it says. That's dishonest.

 

You've turned my original comment into a conversation about Slate's trustworthiness, which is also dishonest. This conversation should be about what we know and can deduce.

 

Perhaps someone would care to link to a source full of information showing how Putin is a wonderful guy with no sour intentions towards Europe and America?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coming from a guy who believed Pizzagate right off the bat based on a half-assed wordpress post, this is a bit rich. Yes, I was swayed by it a little at first also, but the entire lack of proof soon became obvious.

 

There's no proof of the Russian hacks (do you expect there to be, or that it would be released if there was?), but a bit of reasoning suggests a lot.

 

1) Someone was able to hack the DNC, Hillary's e-mails, Podesta's e-mails, etc multiple times. So we are not talking about a dude in his mum's basement. We are talking about lots of people, money, and organization. That basically narrows things down to big countries and big IT corporations.

 

2) These hackers did not attack Hillary in the Primaries, or anytime before or after the election. So this is not against Clinton's policies or her corruption -- this is for Trump.

 

3) The only major power in the World that likes Trump is Russia. It wasn't anyone from the EU, China, India... big IT companies hate Trump, South Americans hate Trump, Africans don't have the power and also hate Trump. So this basically narrows things down to Russia.

 

4) Before being elected, Trump was consistent on almost nothing. He contradicted himself so many times, you can't even try to count. But he was 100% consistent on being friendly to Russia. Even when it hurt him.

 

5) After being elected, Trump put people with Russian ties into power.

 

Who was it, if it wasn't Russia? And what are these "good reasons to believe it's a lie"?

Well stated.

 

Trump put his BP oil guy in who is an executive with a Russian energy corporation. I think it is a Caribbean based corporation. Tillerson?

 

Also the invasion of the Ukraine was not exactly a friendly move by Putin towards NATO.

Edited January 1, 2017 by ralis

[ralis]

I think Obama did the correct move by expelling the Russian reps in Washington. Then Trump praised Putin for being very smart by not retaliating in kind. That was very poor diplomacy on Trumps part.

[Aetherous]

Why?

 

Right off the bat, why? Because you refuse to believe anything bad about Trump, so any article making these kinds of claims must be wrong right off the bat?

 

This will be the last time I respond to you about this because we both have better things to do, and better things to discuss.

 

I already gave a sufficient answer why, if you look back.

 

Here's a question: do you really think what you just insinuated about me is true? If so, that says a lot about you, and I don't even need to defend against it. But if you don't really think it, then why would I even address it...and more importantly, why would you even say it?

 

The intent is not to claim that Trump is a puppet going back to the '70s and that everything he's ever done was directed by Russia. In terms of Trump, the intent is to claim that Trump's existence is good for Putin's plans and that Putin has been doing his best to elevate Trump. In general, the article shows just how involved Putin is in supporting certain undesirable factions across Europe and America.

 

I view that as a dishonest take on what the article is.

 

Also, Putin being opposed to globalism is not undesirable.

 

I'm not here to defend Slate as an entity -- I couldn't care less about it.

 

Good...to do that would be pointless. Anyone can go to their homepage and see why. Or even go to the article being discussed.

 

But the article makes many valid points,

 

No, it doesn't. At best, it cites some things that most likely happened.

 

and nobody has actually negated any of them.

 

I pointed out one bad source, as well as the ridiculous nature of the point of the article. You are free to continue thinking it's legitimate, but I caution against that, and encourage more critical reading of news sources.

 

You prefer to make general claims about the nature of the article's intent without actually talking about what it says. That's dishonest.

 

So you'd prefer if I discussed the sources it cited rather than the point it was making with those sources.

 

You've turned my original comment into a conversation about Slate's trustworthiness, which is also dishonest. This conversation should be about what we know and can deduce.

 

What I really did was mock that Slate article, for good reason. It wasn't personal to you. I'm being honest...and straightforward - Trump is not Putin's puppet.

 

Perhaps someone would care to link to a source full of information showing how Putin is a wonderful guy with no sour intentions towards Europe and America?

 

I'm not a Putin or Russia supporter. I'm an Americanist.

 

Coming from a guy who believed Pizzagate right off the bat based on a half-assed wordpress post, this is a bit rich. Yes, I was swayed by it a little at first also, but the entire lack of proof soon became obvious.

 

There's a lack of direct evidence, but a pile of circumstantial evidence. "Entire lack of proof" being "obvious" is not at all accurate...but it's not like anyone could go to trial and be convicted based on it.

 

I could be a drug dealer, and everyone know it...and if I got arrested and they weren't able to get enough evidence to convict me, would that mean I wasn't a drug dealer?

 

There's no proof of the Russian hacks (do you expect there to be, or that it would be released if there was?), but a bit of reasoning suggests a lot.

 

Yes, I would expect proof to be given...if it required a security clearance, Congress can be sworn in to view it. I don't trust the people asking me to believe them about it.

 

1) Someone was able to hack the DNC, Hillary's e-mails, Podesta's e-mails, etc multiple times. So we are not talking about a dude in his mum's basement. We are talking about lots of people, money, and organization. That basically narrows things down to big countries and big IT corporations.

 

False.

 

2) These hackers did not attack Hillary in the Primaries, or anytime before or after the election. So this is not against Clinton's policies or her corruption -- this is for Trump.

 

I don't understand what this is saying, but as I said, I will no longer engage with you on this topic after this point, so I'm not going to ask what you mean. I'm giving a full response out of courtesy, but ending this back and forth.

 

3) The only major power in the World that likes Trump is Russia. It wasn't anyone from the EU, China, India... big IT companies hate Trump, South Americans hate Trump, Africans don't have the power and also hate Trump. So this basically narrows things down to Russia.

 

I can see how you think this is reasoning. But can you see how shaky the logic is? It's based on nothing, and even the supporting ideas probably are not true.

 

4) Before being elected, Trump was consistent on almost nothing. He contradicted himself so many times, you can't even try to count. But he was 100% consistent on being friendly to Russia. Even when it hurt him.

 

Slate must have been right.

 

5) After being elected, Trump put people with Russian ties into power.

 

Further PROOF that Slate knows what's up.

 

Who was it, if it wasn't Russia? And what are these "good reasons to believe it's a lie"?

 

I already answered you. WikiLeaks has said it was DC insiders. Of course, no reason to believe them...but also, no reason not to believe them. And just as much reason to believe anyone if we're talking about something without a shred of evidence. But there is good reason not to believe the Obama administration, because of the timing of the accusations...the last debate had Hillary nearly calling for war with Russia. Everything is golden until she loses...then all sorts of false claims about Russians hacking the votes came out. Now the word is that Russians released the private emails showing the DNC's corruption.

 

Clinton wasn't good. She exposed SAPs to hackers and potentially other nation states...in addition to much else. That alone would be reason to believe there was a soft coup against her by the US intelligence community, rather than any hacking being about supporting Trump.

 

WikiLeaks knows...eventually the world will know.

 

Anyway...I like to maintain friendliness with other Daobums, from my side of things. There is room for more than one view here. I think Slate and that article is laughable. I can see how a reasonably intelligent person would think it's legitimate (so please don't take my original "lol" personally). I tried to provide some insight into how we can question Slate's article, as well as the Russian hacker fake news.

 

I hope this last response to this particular subject finds you well, and doesn't leave you frustrated for me ending it here. We can take a breath and cultivate, and maybe discuss in a more friendly way in the future.

[Marblehead]

I think Obama did the correct move by expelling the Russian reps in Washington. Then Trump praised Putin for being very smart by not retaliating in kind. That was very poor diplomacy on Trumps part.

 

Or maybe poor diplomacy on Obama's part?  There is still no proof being offered to the public that the Russians actually hacked our elections.

[ralis]

Or maybe poor diplomacy on Obama's part? There is still no proof being offered to the public that the Russians actually hacked our elections.

Absolutely not. The evidence will not be publicly revealed so as to not give away as to how the crack happened which would alert the perpetrators. BTW hacking is programming whereas cracking is illegal intrusion. There is a difference.

 

The evidence would be top secret eyes only.

Edited January 1, 2017 by ralis

[Marblehead]

Absolutely not. The evidence will not be publicly revealed so as to not give away as to how the crack happened which would alert the perpetrators. BTW hacking is programming whereas cracking is illegal intrusion. There is a difference.

 

The evidence would be top secret eyes only.

 

Hehehe.  So we are supposed to just take the word for this from those who have a proven record of lying to us all the time.

 

I don't think so.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Edited January 2, 2017 by Sionnach

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Have California secede than everyone can be happy. Problem solved. Easy.

"California... would be the 6th largest economy in the world", "California... is in debt" ha

Complains about taxes, votes for more taxes.

California can be the Homosexual Islamic Progressive light of the world.

  Edited January 2, 2017 by Sionnach

[Marblehead]

Actually, all three of the states including Oregon and Washington could get together and establish a Western Unites States of America.

 

At least those areas west of the mountain range

[Brian]

Curiously, without California's votes (and, more curiously, also without just California's Sanctuary Cities and Counties), Trump would have won the national popular vote count, too.

[MooNiNite]

Anti-government? Lets see if the Republicans reduce government spending or increase it. I bet they increase spending. anti-control? making abortion illegal (which is a goal of theirs) is anti-freedom and control all in one.

 

 

You have to be joking about freedom. Where I live you cannot even build a deck on the back of your own home without permission from the government. The Republicans are NOT going to increase our freedom that is a pathetic joke. They are just as bad as the democrats so I don't want to hear the "well the democrats are worse or just as bad." I am already well aware of that.

 

I am tired of hearing how one party is superior to the other when that is incorrect they are two sides to one coin.

 

That is where you are wrong. Trump's campaign is to dismantle the government, just read his website.  Secondly there is very little chance that trump will spend anything near what Obama spent. 

[MooNiNite]

The vice presidential debates were along the same lines. Hillary's vice presidential nominee's state is in horrible debt, while Pence's state is wealthy. 

[MooNiNite]

Making abortion illegal is a point that i also disagreed with trump about, but it is something that trump promoted to get a popular vote. In the debate he discusses how a baby that is about to be born shouldnt be ripped out of its mother. 

[ralis]

That is where you are wrong. Trump's campaign is to dismantle the government, just read his website.  Secondly there is very little chance that trump will spend anything near what Obama spent.

 

Dismantle the government?

[dawei]

Hehehe.  So we are supposed to just take the word for this from those who have a proven record of lying to us all the time.

 

I don't think so.

 

I generally agree with your points and there are likely ways one could reveal those findings to even a select group of techs who would then vouch for it... but even that or they shared it with Trump's team, he will likely just do is own independent evaluation using his new team.  So I hope he just drops all comments about whether to believe the current analysis... and move on.

 

I think the action taken was more a bone toss to him than anything else.  It was a very weak move to remove the guys who have no role in the hacking anyways.   So the government can at least say something was done; seems more symbolic particularly with Putin waiting to see Trump's next play.... and inviting all the US counterparts to a christmas party.

 

Given that Russia has been hacking us for years and we knew about the political hacks 18 months ago and did nothing much, it's just too little too late in terms of action and excuses.   Let the next administration decide on doing something. 

[Geof Nanto]

I usually stay away from these political threads but for some reason I was drawn to read this one. Interesting comments, one and all. As someone who is well into the second half of their life and who lives substantially outside mainstream society, my interest is more in gaining insight into the underlying forces that shape our opinions. In other words, where do these strong political (and other) opinions come from? 

 

Adapted from Nietzsche.......

 

Main thought! Not politics deceives us, the individuals, and promotes its ends by hoodwinking us: instead, the individuals arrange all Being according to individual — i.e. false — measures; we want to be right in this case, and consequently "politics" has to appear as a liar. In truth, there are no individual truths, instead there are merely individual errors. The individual itself is an error.

 

Everything happening within us is in itself something else that we do not know: only we put the intention, the hoodwinking and the morality into politics. – But I distinguish: the conceived-conceited individuals and the true "life-systems", which everyone among us is one — both are conflated into one, while "the individual" is only a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and errors, a belief, a little piece of the true life-system, or many little pieces, thought and imagined to be unified, a "unit" that does not hold.

 

We are buds on One tree — what do we know about what may become of us in the interest of that tree! But we have a consciousness, as if we would want to and should be Everything, a fantasy of "I" and all "Non-I." 

 

Inner cultivation: Ceasing to feel being such a fantastical ego! Learning step by step to throw of the supposed individual! Discovering the errors of the ego! Looking into egotism as an error! Don't you ever conceive of its opposite as altruism! This would be the love of the other supposed individuals! No! Beyond "me" and "you"! Feeling cosmic.

[Owledge]

Hillary Clinton did offer zero change. We don't have a "left" any more. We have far right and fascists. Obama and Hillary are far right.

I would pose that (at least based on current situation of old gov deeds vs. new gov claims) Trump is the far right and O/H are the fascists. It's difficult to have fascism with advocates for small-government. At this point I see Trump as an antifascist authoritarian national socialist while I see O/H as fascist corporatocrats. Their fascism is demonstrated in how they use word shells that are the opposite of what they're doing as forces to rally an army of indoctrinated bigots for war against different political ideas and they get people to support whatever crime the almighty concentrated power of the government wants to do.

 

Trump's politics could go in a fascist direction if not kept in check (and sadly the Democraps won't be able to keep it in check because they lost all credibility), but currently I see at least some potential for it to go in a not overly disastrous direction. But only if people abolish the war-lust in their heads, which is especially strong among Democrats and especially nasty since they fanatically entertain the belief of the opposite.

 

I keep being reminded (and wish others would, too) of what Malcolm X expressed in his autobiography:

He conveyed that the southerners at least were open about their hatred of him, so he knew where he stood with them. The northerners on the other hand would greet him with a smile and a handshake while thinking of murdering him in his sleep.

This polarity is still as active today as it was such a long time ago, which is sad. But the frozen state the USA have been in couldn't be expressed better than in the absurd-outrageous-fanatical repetition of history in the current rampant McCarthyism and Cold War propaganda.

 

I realized quite a while ago that the problem is not lack of communication of facts, not lack of remembering history. The problem is that too many people just don't give a shit about those because they're bellicose bigots (bebis); convenient, lazy, cowardly minds. They are everything they indoctrinate themselves into believing they're fighting against.

 

Another old wisdom much-neglected: Beware, it is easy to become what you fight.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Owledge

[ralis]

One of Trumps buddies, Johnny 'No Socks' Cinque, is a convicted felon and friend of John Gotti (Gambino crime family).

Edited January 4, 2017 by ralis

[Owledge]

 I see a subject without a predicate.

Not necessarily, although then still not 100% correct. But it could be that someone appears, and that someone being that one buddy of Trump.

(I don't think it was meant that way though.)

[ralis]

I see a subject without a predicate.

Typing on my phone today and the critique is not welcome since you have nothing to add.

[ralis]

I revised my post.

[ralis]

Sorry, I never have anything political to add.

Are you the grammar police? Typing on an iPhone is not efficient for me. I would pull out my iPad from my bag, but don't feel like it. I am in the middle of the Mojave desert at the moment.

[ralis]

I was aware of the grammatical errors but was not motivated to revise my statement.

Edited January 4, 2017 by ralis

[ralis]

Even a hint of any association with known felons or mobsters should bring into question Trumps business dealings.