U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

*Sigh* Are you honestly suggesting that propagated "Fake News" of the sort that became profligate during this election (I'm talking about the Facebook stuff here, the Pizzagate style, spun from whole cloth bullshit) can honestly be equated with shoddy journalism?

 Legitimate news organizations like the Post should be especially careful to double and triple check before publishing, especially now, but I think it's a mistake to lump this into the "Fake News" category. There is a magnitude of difference between those two things.

I am not saying that they're the same, but they're definitely part of the same spectrum. One of the interesting features of the past few years is that many Americans realized this. In our capitalist system, political reporting has two purposes:

1) Profit. This typically means attracting the largest possible audience to view ads and/or pay for specific media.

2) Advancing the political position of whoever owns the media outlet. Remember, most American media is controlled by a small number of corporations which are in turn controlled by a small number of very rich people who have political preferences.

The extent to which a report is truthful or unbiased matters only insomuch as lying too often makes people trust you less. Mainstreams media aims to be perceived as accurate and unbiased, but they're nothing of the sort -- even when they're not being deceitful, they mold a narrative by choosing to focus on some topics and not others. Labeling something "Fake News" can in and of itself be a part of this narrative (although it is sometimes an accurate statement).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I am not saying that they're the same, but they're definitely part of the same spectrum. One of the interesting features of the past few years is that many Americans realized this. In our capitalist system, political reporting has two purposes:

1) Profit. This typically means attracting the largest possible audience to view ads and/or pay for specific media.

2) Advancing the political position of whoever owns the media outlet. Remember, most American media is controlled by a small number of corporations which are in turn controlled by a small number of very rich people who have political preferences.

The extent to which a report is truthful or unbiased matters only insomuch as lying too often makes people trust you less. Mainstreams media aims to be perceived as accurate and unbiased, but they're nothing of the sort -- even when they're not being deceitful, they mold a narrative by choosing to focus on some topics and not others. Labeling something "Fake News" can in and of itself be a part of this narrative (although it is sometimes an accurate statement).

Yeah, I agree with everything you've written here. I agree that our corporate media is far more concerned with profit than it is truth. That said, this new definition of the term "Fake News" (it used to be applied to comedic shows that centered their focus on the news such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Show) is something altogether different. I don't think it's helpful or accurate to apply the term "Fake News" to flawed stories such as the Post story that was posted earlier. We have to make a distinction otherwise everything becomes "Fake News". 

[Tempra]

Welp, the Russians just hacked Mariah Carey's New Year's Eve performance.  Have they no shame??

[ThinkerX]

6 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I agree with everything you've written here. I agree that our corporate media is far more concerned with profit than it is truth. That said, this new definition of the term "Fake News" (it used to be applied to comedic shows that centered their focus on the news such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Show) is something altogether different. I don't think it's helpful or accurate to apply the term "Fake News" to flawed stories such as the Post story that was posted earlier. We have to make a distinction otherwise everything becomes "Fake News". 

Lines from the opening of an old TV series keeps coming to mind with the whole 'fake/slanted' news thing:

'...they say the devil is in the details, and I know just what they mean, coz I'm walking through the wasteland with the ghost in the machine...'

'...the sky is full of miracles, and half of them are lies...'  

[BloodRider]

On 12/30/2016 at 3:22 PM, sToNED_CAT said:

US did the same in last few years and not just to our enemies (Israel). The "funding of parties throughout" Europe is just leftist propaganda. Those parties are popular because of actions of european politicians, not because of Russian involvement. Putin never ordered Merkel to invite whole ME to Europe, he never ordered EU to force member countries to accept refugees against their will.

 

The UKraine should have been handled by not starting the whole situation at all! People now think it was Putin who started this whole crisis. BS. It was started by EU, Obama and George Soros who overthrew (or helped) democratically elected prorussian government of Ukraine. Yanukovich wanted to bring Ukraine closer to Russia and was elected to do that. After he tried to sign economical treaty that would have tied Ukraine to East, the pro EU minority supported by Obama and EU revolted. How was Putin supposed to react? How would US react if Russian conspired to overthrow Canadian government and tried to replace it with pro Russian one?

If Obama wasn't prepared to defend new Ukraine government, he made a mistake to involve US. It also created pretty serious domino effect - the Russians pulling out of Iranian sanctions and their direct involvement in Syria postdate Ukrainian crisis. Somehow no one seems to make the obvious conclusion... Despite "reset" retorics Obama admin treated Russia like crap for the last 4 years at least.

This is borderline paranoid fantasy.  It's like Putin didn't invade former Soviet satellite states before Obama.  If only Obama hadn't dressed Ukraine that way, I mean Ukraine was basically asking for it!  And then you invoke Soros for the nutbar trifecta.

[Relic]

On 12/31/2016 at 0:20 AM, Arakan said:

What was the major fuck up of GWB? Obviously starting the Iraq War. 

I think you're forgetting a couple of dozen others? 

[sToNED_CAT]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

This is borderline paranoid fantasy.  It's like Putin didn't invade former Soviet satellite states before Obama.  If only Obama hadn't dressed Ukraine that way, I mean Ukraine was basically asking for it!  And then you invoke Soros for the nutbar trifecta.

Putin invaded Georgia, but he wasn't going to invade Ukraine, because he was getting it for "free". I say it again - democratically elected prorussian Ukrainian government refused to sign EU accession treaty, because conditions were too harsh and Russia offered better deal. Said government was then simply overthrown and it is proven EU and US ambassadors played a big part by providing at least international support for new regime. Those are facts, not paranoid fantasies. And Soros involvement in similar revolutions in eastern Europe is fact too so I don't know why are you talking about nutbar trifecta. In fact I believe, it was only because of Soros (big dem supporter) Obama got involved.That last part is just my conspiracy theory, I admit, but plausible. (US wasn't going to gain real any benefits from revolution except pissing off Russians whose support was needed in Iran and Syria).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

35 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Putin invaded Georgia, but he wasn't going to invade Ukraine, because he was getting it for "free". I say it again - democratically elected prorussian Ukrainian government refused to sign EU accession treaty, because conditions were too harsh and Russia offered better deal. Said government was then simply overthrown and it is proven EU and US ambassadors played a big part by providing at least international support for new regime. Those are facts, not paranoid fantasies. And Soros involvement in similar revolutions in eastern Europe is fact too so I don't know why are you talking about nutbar trifecta. In fact I believe, it was only because of Soros (big dem supporter) Obama got involved.That last part is just my conspiracy theory, I admit, but plausible. (US wasn't going to gain real any benefits from revolution except pissing off Russians whose support was needed in Iran and Syria).

Yeah, but for those amazing cookies I'm sure on one in Ukraine would have protested Yanukovych and his government.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, BloodRider said:

The UKraine should have been handled by not starting the whole situation at all! People now think it was Putin who started this whole crisis. BS. It was started by EU, Obama and George Soros who overthrew (or helped) democratically elected prorussian government of Ukraine. Yanukovich wanted to bring Ukraine closer to Russia and was elected to do that.

How democratic elections in the Ukraine were, that is somewhat open for interpretation. Yes, an elected pro-Russian goverment was overthrown. Which is an internal affair of a country. And it's basically not an excuse/or a permission to invade the country. 

You know, the Ukraine is a divided country. You have a big Russian population in the South and the in the East. Who will vote pretty much for anybody who is for a closer relationship to Russia (Make the Soviet Union great again). That's also more rural areas. In quite a few of those areas, people do not speak Ukrainian (or do not speak it particularly well since it's not their primary language).

Then you have the Western Ukraine and the Northern Ukraine. Which includes Kiev. They are less pro-Russia and were into a more European policy. Those tensions between Ukrainians and Russians was not new, and not a western invention. That conflict was boiling for quite some time. And it nothing to do with Soros, Obama or Santa Claus.

One of the more moronic ideas after they kicked out Janukovich was to make Ukrainian as the sole official language, and thus to discriminate the Russians. 

[sToNED_CAT]

43 minutes ago, Notone said:

How democratic elections in the Ukraine were, that is somewhat open for interpretation. Yes, an elected pro-Russian goverment was overthrown. Which is an internal affair of a country. And it's basically not an excuse/or a permission to invade the country. 

You know, the Ukraine is a divided country. You have a big Russian population in the South and the in the East. Who will vote pretty much for anybody who is for a closer relationship to Russia (Make the Soviet Union great again). That's also more rural areas. In quite a few of those areas, people do not speak Ukrainian (or do not speak it particularly well since it's not their primary language).

Then you have the Western Ukraine and the Northern Ukraine. Which includes Kiev. They are less pro-Russia and were into a more European policy. Those tensions between Ukrainians and Russians was not new, and not a western invention. That conflict was boiling for quite some time. And it nothing to do with Soros, Obama or Santa Claus.

The government was recognized as democratically elected by Obama's govt too.

It is questionable how "internal" the whole revolution was... It is questionable US would tolerate such "internal revolution" on borders... Hell, we have one historic example - Cuba.

Yes, the Ukraine is a divided country. No one disputes that. And EU, US and Sorosians used that division to help overthrow pro eastern govt that had narrow but stable majority for some time... EU wanted Ukraine in EU, not in CIS; Soros always opposed Russian influence and nationalists in Eastern Europe. Only god knows why Obama went with the scheme. Probably because he is simply an idiot and wanted to make EU and Soros happy.

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yeah, but for those amazing cookies I'm sure on one in Ukraine would have protested Yanukovych and his government.  

Protesting and overthrowing govt are 2 diff things. The issue about Ukraine is that capital is located in western pro EU part of country, so it was easier to get critical mass of anti govt people on streets, but that doesn't mean people in other areas were supportive.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

EU wanted Ukraine in EU, not in CIS; Soros always opposed Russian influence and nationalists in Eastern Europe. Only god knows why Obama went with the scheme. Probably because he is simply an idiot and wanted to make EU and Soros happy.

and here I thought it was because;

1 hour ago, sToNED_CAT said:

that last part is just my conspiracy theory, I admit

 

[sToNED_CAT]

7 minutes ago, LongRider said:

and here I thought it was because;

I fail to see the fundamental difference between those two posts, besides including EU too in second one... It's all speculation why Obama/USA did it, but there's no no reason to doubt that he did.

And that it significantly damaged US interest and his own priorities everywhere. It was like pretty big domino effect - pissed off Russians pulled out of Iranian embargo, EU who should have been thankful US supported their viewpoint in Ukraine promptly stabbed Obama to the back and pulled out too - whole embargo fell apart. Russians after seeing that US doesn't really give a fuck about them (despite Russians after reset supporting US in Iran and Lybia), decided to pursue their interests unilaterally in Ukraine and Syria.

But you won't find any such analysis in western media - Putin is making Obama's life miserable simply because he's bad evil thug, rebels in Syria are good guys despite 50% of them being ISIS,  30% other less known islamists; and Obama/Kerry are good diplomats. What a colossal BS. He is liked in Europe, true. But successful diplomacy is not about being liked - it is about achieving your goals through diplomatic means. And current admin at the end achieved pretty much nothing, even their small victories were dismantled post Ukrainian revolution.

The fact is (and Trump seems to understand it pretty well), that whole "conflict with Russia" that consumed US foreign policy attention in last few years was completely pointless. Even victorious, US would have won nothing, and it was sure as hell no victory.

[TheKitttenGuard]

The invasion of Crimea was more Putin accepting that much of Ukraine is going to lean toward the West and wanted to ensure what Putin's view of Russia interest with the Navsl Base at Sevastopol.  

The problem gets to be that Crimea will become very costly without a mainland means of access, and those Pro-Russia areas of East most likely will never get to the point where Russia will be able to have that without a more overt invasion than what occured in Crimea.

 Maintaining what ones view of their Honor and Dignity can get to be quite costly.  

I actually do not think Trump is so far in love with Russia he will be accepting of additional taking of Ukrainian territory.  He will still in the end be highly supportive to maintain the American Empire despite his ignorance and the statements that arise from it.

Crimea could go back to Ukraine if Russia has assurances of its interest, and it will be the biggest Validation of Trump's view of Russian matters.  In those cases the article related to Crimea and their love of Russia from certain writers will be interesting reads. 

Worst case will be a relative minor act of  a show of strength will get exponentially escalated which could force Russia to escalate or face a humiliation.   At this point all those remarks of Hillary's determination for WW3 will appear to be very foolish.  

Putin may very well be a great Realist but it depends a lot on the counterpart to still have Realism, even though it is adversarial, and Trump's has constantly shown a lacked of it, and so far been successful at this point.

[Commodore]

which of Snowden, Bergdahl, Manning, John Walker Lindh, Hillary get pardons from Obama?

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, Commodore said:

which of Snowden, Bergdahl, Manning, John Walker Lindh, Hillary get pardons from Obama?

 

Well, Snowden's a friend of Putin these days, so he's more likely to get a pardon from Trump.

[Werthead]

Quote

Well, Snowden's a friend of Putin these days, so he's more likely to get a pardon from Trump.

Not so much. Snowden has been quite outspoken on some of Russia's policies, and is annoyed that after that radio call-in show stunt it turned out that Russia does have some quite hardcore surveillance laws of its own.

Russia probably won't arrest Snowden or send him back to the USA just yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them fob him off on another country.

[Zorral]

Never arrested never indicted, never convicted of driving without a license, Hillary doesn't need a pardon.  Sheesh.

Leonard Peltier needs one and should have one. So does Manning

Snowden, not so much, hmmmm?

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

More Chicken Hawkery I see.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/obama-was-right-not-get-involved-syria

Quote

Look, the most important thing here is that this cease-fire, to the extent that it holds, is not a result of clever diplomacy. It’s what the Romans called “the peace of the grave.” The rebels were dealt such a huge defeat in Aleppo, they are in no position to carry on the fight in the same way as before. This is a Russian victory. The mantra out of this administration always was, “You can’t solve a civil war militarily.” The answer is, you can.

Yes, Krauthammer, I guess you can stop a civil war,  if you want to. Question is at what cost? And do you want to pay it? And  have you really thought through all the cost? Like carefully?

Supposing we did intervene? Then what happens? Next? Do we support Assad's regime? How many people want to support that jackass? Or do we, try to install a different government and support that? Doesn't seem that has worked out too well in the past. Or maybe we just leave and let the whole place implode, after intervening?

Seems to me like old Krauthhammer didn't really think this through very well before speaking.

[Guest]

There is apparently new evidence that Richard Nixon meddled with a Vietnam War peace process in the runnup to the 68 election to help himself win over Humphrey.  I guess this was long-speculated but they never had ironclad evidence that it went all the way to Nixon and now it's clear.  

[sToNED_CAT]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

More Chicken Hawkery I see.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/obama-was-right-not-get-involved-syria

Ah people have short memory... Obama was totally itching to get involved in Syria. He was just afraid a coalition of tea party and liberal doves won't give him authorization and after UK parliament refused to approve war, he backed out. Thank god, I say. Assads victory, while not ideal outcome is preferable to islamist opposition.