Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 110

On March 03 2019 18:49 Stroggoz wrote: The regular news has made everyone cynical; The public knows they are being lied to and that's one of the consequences; extreme cynacism. Yes there are a lot of bubbles people get themselve's into in the media, especially on the internet. Just take the new york times bubble you seem to be stuck in-they (opinion pieces) beleive that the american government is enforcing democracy around the world. You have to be seriously bubbled to beleive that. Keep in mind that centrists have always been wrong in history, if you are a centrist you should seriously question what you beleive.

See the right-wingers at least keep it short with 'FAKE NEWS!!!' You simply stretch the same idea out over several sentences and in some cases paragraphs. You want to point out a specific story you think is fake (as in not factually accurate, not merely an opinion piece you disagree with) fine, we can do that, otherwise your posts are just air.

I don't agree with the fake news hysteria, obviously. It's complete nonsense. Trumps just says fake news to anything he dislikes. That is completely different from analysis from the left-it's not even remotely comparable. Just take a look at the analysis done on mainstream media by herman or chomsky, david peterson, or media lens. You say my post was air and it is a fair point as it didn't have any references in it, I'll leave one analysis of someone seriously in a bubble, Dr Krugman. You can go from there. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/liberalism-and-empire.

Like i said before the problem with the Russian interference stories are that it isn't that important, as you can easily see and others in this thread agreed with me. It is not the factual part that is wrong with the story, it is the relevance of what is covered in the media.

Most of the analysis that is done is not to do with factual consistency-rather simply just focusing on some stories while ignoring others. All i ask is that you give it a chance and go read the criticisms of mainstream media, from the articulate left.

On March 03 2019 19:15 Stroggoz wrote: I don't agree with the fake news hysteria, obviously. It's complete nonsense. Trumps just says fake news to anything he dislikes. That is completely different from analysis from the left-it's not even remotely comparable. Just take a look at the analysis done on mainstream media by herman or chomsky, david peterson, or media lens. You say my post was air and it is a fair point as it didn't have any references in it, I'll leave one analysis of someone seriously in a bubble, Dr Krugman. You can go from there. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/liberalism-and-empire.

I read the current affairs article and don't necessarily consider it unfair, though I don't have time to fact-check its claims, my main problem is that it doesn't really relate in any way to current policy. You mention Chomsky, who I like, I've read Manufacturing Consent years ago, but you should also know that he reads and writes for the New York Times (as recently as 2017). Had to google his position on Rojava, which I was curious about since his political stance is so close to theirs. From this interview https://theintercept.com/2018/09/26/trump-united-nations-noam-chomsky/:

The other crucial question is the status of the Kurdish areas — Rojava. In my opinion, it makes sense for the United States to maintain a presence which would deter an attack on the Kurdish areas. They have the one part of Syria which is succeeded in sustaining a functioning society with many decent elements. And the idea that they should be subjected to an attack by their bitter enemies the Turks, or by the murderous Assad regime I think is anything should be done to try to prevent that.

This is exactly my position on the issue, has been since 2016 which I've voiced itt, but of course I get called an imperialist because I'm not prefacing all my posts with past US crimes. Also had arguments *in this thread* about the Kurds being dismissed as terrorists and how I'm using the word 'murderous' to describe Assad. I saw that you also apparently support troops staying there (at least that's your position recently), so sometimes I wonder wtf we're actually arguing about.

Like i said before the problem with the Russian interference stories are that it isn't that important, as you can easily see and others in this thread agreed with me. It is not the factual part that is wrong with the story, it is the relevance of what is covered in the media.

The proven Russian interference is and should be a major story in itself. Obviously there would be a lot of cold-warish maneuvering between US and Russia in the current world, but it is news that it would be done so blatantly, and its is important for people to understand so that they don't become so susceptible to it. People need to understand that random funny meme they see on the internet could have actually been produced by government agents. Random lefty seeming websites could have been infiltrated. How tech giants like Twitter and Facebook should police that sort thing without violating free speech is a major issue in itself.

Actual collusion with Russia (as in Trump administration trading favorable business deals, let alone political ones) for hacking the democrats is a colossal fucking story no matter how you slice it. Again, it would be like saying the Watergate scandal was no big deal.

well if you've read those peices and that book i was wrong to say ur in a bubble (it looked like that from your post history to me).

Watergate also wasn't huge big deal, imo.There was some illegal spying, but there were much worse things that happened at the same time which got suppressed in the media, like the political assissination of fred hampton.

I hadn't known chomsky has been allowed to write for the new york times, i mean i've seen some stuff on linguistics, but nothing ever on politics. So that's news to me. Link the article?

Yeah, i totally agree with your position in the middle east right now. and ah yeah Assad is surely is a murderous dictator, but if you remember in manufacturing consent the analysis was that we focus on crimes of other states and not our own. So yeah, actually, it is a big deal if you keep focusing on what the agenda setting media decides is the news and not the stuff that matters to the public. All of that stuff you mentioned is important, but compartively-when you look at how the rich influence elections-(and they interfere with facebook, cambridge analytica was a big thing as well), it is far greater-so in a socialist media you would get that as the big news story and righfully so.

On March 03 2019 23:30 Stroggoz wrote: I hadn't known chomsky has been allowed to write for the new york times, i mean i've seen some stuff on linguistics, but nothing ever on politics. So that's news to me. Link the article?

I suppose its not technically 'writing for', but this is what I was referring to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/opinion/noam-chomsky-on-trump-and-the-state-of-the-union.html

if you remember in manufacturing consent the analysis was that we focus on crimes of other states and not our own.

Well I feel like I've been focusing pretty heavily on Trump and he is of course of my state. But there is a danger in having him be a scapegoat for larger US problems. Having a racist scam artist as a president is bad but the fact that his approval is as high as 46% is worse. To their credit it seems like the leading Democrats for 2020 are focusing more on inequality and environmental issues rather than wasting time on the latest weekly outrage.

How likely is it to make someone change their political opinion online when they are 30+ of age

I changed my mind. I used to think people would agree to gamble on lottery tickets for their place in an ancap world (check out my only post in The Anarchy Thread) but that is kind of fucked up and dystopian. There definitely has to be a better way. Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-communism, Libertarian-socialism, something like that.

hehe i mean in general. I switched from pro-palestine to pro-israel and I started to dislike the ideology of Islam in 2014-2015 (those 2 things go together maybe), but it was not because of someone arguing against me on the internet

On March 04 2019 12:29 VanDerMeyde wrote: How likely is it to make someone change their political opinion online when they are 30+ of age

Depends on how much into politics you are.

I'm not sure if that consistutes change enough but years ago I would strongly oppose Universal basic income, now I think it's starting to seem to me like a reasonable solution if income inequality trends in developed countries do not change.

I also think the bipartysan system in the US is very polarizing, it creates more tribalism since they are opposing teams (even if their platforms have been quite close to each other), I think having more options make people more likely to switch to other party so you dont have to make a 180 turn.

Ya boy contradicting Loco's cencorious ideology, not only is hypocritial but tactically stupid.

Punch a nazi, generate a thousand more, the left haven't learned from decades of US military interventions in the middle east it seems.

Hypocritical: making arguments and using historical evidence to bolster them, while being open to change one's mind.

Not hypocritical: choosing to appeal to authority when it confirms your opinion and ignore almost everything that this same authority says on other topics that oppose your beliefs.



+ Show Spoiler +

Free speech is too fragile to be legislated properly without abuse. Doubt you'll solve the matter here.

If you start oppressing certain messages, then a bunch of SJW will claim they are getting harassed as well and common sense will get banned as well. We already see it happening

So apparently people in Venezuela are not starving, it's all a scam! All the proof you need is in this video.

On March 08 2019 20:14 Loco wrote: Not hypocritical: choosing to appeal to authority when it confirms your opinion and ignore almost everything that this same authority says on other topics that oppose your beliefs.

Except that is not an appearl to authorioty (which is a fallacy you do all the time), I am not saying that because an expert (Chomsky) said that its true, I'm pointing out how the person you cite the most often is against your already obviously stupid censorioius and violent stance.


















That has the be the most retarded strawman I've seen in a long time, holy fuck #TheLeftCantMeme

Also extra stupidity points for not realizing its actually a Mexican telling a white Canadian and not the othe way around.

I can't beging to imagine how much shit you would fling if you were born with a different skin colour, sadly you are pale as snow so you only get to be an "ally" that teaches us latinamericans about our own politicians and economies, and to censor dissidents and beat people up to protect us from nazis.. or something, thank you so much Mhysa!

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/pe...t-russiagate-is-bullshit-3d0334bea729

Pelosi and the rest of the Russiagaters are backpedaling now after 2 years and are now trying to cut their losses.

The DNC again with disastrous strategy, it was pretty clear long ago that Trump wasn't going to get impeached and instead of stopping and saving some fuel for the re-elections they decided to keep full steam ahead and now anything russia related would backfire in 2020.

Hindsight is 20/20 but its not a minor error, they recklessly polarized the country and scorched the earth in pursuit of the white house in a comical self-immolation act.

On March 13 2019 05:33 Baalim wrote: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/pe...t-russiagate-is-bullshit-3d0334bea729 Pelosi and the rest of the Russiagaters are backpedaling now after 2 years and are now trying to cut their losses. The DNC again with disastrous strategy, it was pretty clear long ago that Trump wasn't going to get impeached and instead of stopping and saving some fuel for the re-elections they decided to keep full steam ahead and now anything russia related would backfire in 2020. Hindsight is 20/20 but its not a minor error, they recklessly polarized the country and scorched the earth in pursuit of the white house in a comical self-immolation act.

I have no idea how anyone with a soul could vote Democrat in 2020 and still be able to sleep at night

In actual news, Manafort sentenced to more charges today including ‘conspiracy against the United States’ bringing his total prison time to 7.5 years. See that’s the difference between Russiagate and fake scandals like Benghazi and Uranium One, you have investigations that find criminals, get convictions, and send them to prison. But until there’s video evidence of Putin pimp-slapping Trump it’s just ‘bullshit’, ‘bad strategy’, and of course a WITCH HUNT!!!!!!!!

On March 12 2019 23:06 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2019 20:14 Loco wrote: Not hypocritical: choosing to appeal to authority when it confirms your opinion and ignore almost everything that this same authority says on other topics that oppose your beliefs. Except that is not an appearl to authorioty (which is a fallacy you do all the time), I am not saying that because an expert (Chomsky) said that its true, I'm pointing out how the person you cite the most often is against your already obviously stupid censorioius and violent stance. That has the be the most retarded strawman I've seen in a long time, holy fuck #TheLeftCantMeme Also extra stupidity points for not realizing its actually a Mexican telling a white Canadian and not the othe way around. I can't beging to imagine how much shit you would fling if you were born with a different skin colour, sadly you are pale as snow so you only get to be an "ally" that teaches us latinamericans about our own politicians and economies, and to censor dissidents and beat people up to protect us from nazis.. or something, thank you so much Mhysa!

You're not pointing out anything you bumbling fool. I argued with Drone and Stroggoz for several pages about liberal free speech and my arguments for its shortcomings, and I explicitly mentioned Chomsky four pages ago and discussed his arguments. There was absolutely nothing added to the discussion with your post, nor was there anything in the Chomsky video that contradicts what I have been saying. While you weren't paying attention, I said that Chomsky hasn't addressed key arguments anywhere (the paradox of tolerance; the historical evidence for the efficacy of anti-fascist direct action) so he's not giving me anything to change my mind. His association of antifa to the Weathermen is historically wrong and the point he makes in the video you linked about Holocaust denial repression is pretty sketchy. Conspiracy theories are in a category of their own: people don't organize under those ideas in order to commit violence or justify the violence that already exists. Holocaust denial is offensive but it is not a direct threat to people.

You only made yourself look stupid and toxic as fuck for reviving a conversation that you refused to take part in a week before and you were demonstrating your lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy. It's adorable that you think that I have to agree with Chomsky on everything or else I'm contradicting myself; I disagree with Chomsky on more things than you disagree with Stefan Molyneux. He is not "my guy", I respect his expertise in his relevant fields but I can challenge people I respect because I can think for myself, unlike you. I am in fact more pro-free speech than you are, because you believe in granting people protections from the consequences of their speech, and I am saying no, people should be able to say whatever they want to say and as a result reap what they sow.

It was so predictable that you would bring up your ethnicity and think you can leverage it to score a point. Pathetic. Your ethnicity is completely irrelevant. The broad point is that people who hold liberal free speech values as sacred are almost always the people who will not be suffering the consequences of their failings. They are not people who are surrounding themselves with the people who will be, and they are not the people who have had their friends and relatives killed by fascists. For some reason they also have little interest in asking those people for their views on the matter.

I don't think that a guy who looks like this is under great threat from neo-fascists when walking down the street:



You don't get to speak for other Latin Americans who aren't light-skinned like you. Even if you weren't light-skinned, and you were in favor of platforming fascists, that wouldn't mean that you aren't wrong, it would simply mean that you have been indoctrinated to go against your own interests, as some people have, especially by American libertarian think tanks.

But most importantly, it bears repeating that this is all just a game to you. Your politics are lived behind a computer screen, you have no skin in any of this. You are a wealthy mexican who complains about having the best president in the whole of Latin America. (Actually, in America as a whole). You have zero credibility on issues of social justice: you have no struggle and no solidarity for people's struggles.

On March 13 2019 18:27 Loco wrote: I can think for myself, unlike you.

Says the generic leftist who thinks is different from the rest of the leftists becauase he eats mollusks lol.

I am in fact more pro-free speech than you are, because you believe in granting people protections from the consequences of their speech, and I am saying no, people should be able to say whatever they want to say and as a result reap what they sow.

"violent supression of speech is real free speech", said Loco with a straight face.

The broad point is that people who hold liberal values as sacred are almost always the people who will not be suffering the consequences of their failings. and they are not the people who have had their friends and relatives killed by fascists. I don't think that a guy who looks like this is under great threat from neo-fascists when walking down the street

Are you somehow sending these messages from 1942 in Germany or are you just paranoid schizophrenic?

How can someone live in such a skewed reality that they see nazis walking down the street killing people en masse lol.

You don't get to speak for other latin americans who aren't light-skinned like you. Even if you weren't light-skinned, that wouldn't mean that you aren't wrong, it would simply mean that you have been indoctrinated to go against your own interests

So I'm not Mexican enough... and even if I were I would just be a brain washed "Uncle Tom", gotcha.

But most importantly, it bears repeating that this is all just a game to you. Your politics are lived behind a computer screen, you have no skin in any of this. You are a wealthy mexican

Unlike you who is risking his life against the nazis marching down the streets to get you lol.

I was born in an uppder-middle class in Mexico which has less purchase power than your average Canadian tradesman, so you were born in more riches than I did in your broken home that made you this resentful.

who complains from a place of privilege about having the best president in the whole of Latin America. (Actually, in America as a whole)

The hubris it takes to think that you are going to school me about Mexican politicians I've known for 20+ years that you have just read a couple of articles about... please go on, lets discuss about Mexican politics, thank you, I do feel like taking a shit in your mouth.

On March 13 2019 18:08 NMcNasty wrote: In actual news, Manafort sentenced to more charges today including ‘conspiracy against the United States’ bringing his total prison time to 7.5 years. See that’s the difference between Russiagate and fake scandals like Benghazi and Uranium One, you have investigations that find criminals, get convictions, and send them to prison. But until there’s video evidence of Putin pimp-slapping Trump it’s just ‘bullshit’, ‘bad strategy’, and of course a WITCH HUNT!!!!!!!!

I think you mistake what I'm saying, I'm saying its bad strategy to try to bring Trump down mid-term with the Russia narrative since it was apparent long ago impeachment wasn't coming, so the smartest thing was to save some bits for the re-election campaign regardless of the truth of the allegations.

The convictions are pretty strong evidence of collusion between the campaign and russia, now that doesn't mean its significant in the results and that Wikileaks is also involved, of that there is no evidence so far.