US Politics: Now with Alt Facts

[Kalbear]

I'm happy to say that misogynistic criticism against Conway and Ivanka sucks. But we were talking about one specific criticism, and that wasn't misogynistic. 

Did people report that an alt-right protester planted the 'rape melania' placard? I'm skeptical of the source, mind you.

[Tempra]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You have no problem with Trump using an insecure email to conduct social media? Really? That's surprising.

Also, Spicer is walking back the 20% tariff idea, saying it's an example of the kind of thing that they could do. One reason that the press is so eager to jump on anything is because there have been no actual ideas on what is going on, so anything could be true.

 

I have a problem with Trump using Twitter in general.  Whether the account being tied to a @gmail.com (as opposed to @whitehouse.gov) email account violates any law, however, is a separate question.  

As far as we can tell, Trump is not sending classified information through an unsecure server.  If he is, I would have a big problem with him doing so. Posting his rants on Twitter, while generally ill advised and often embarassing, isn't conveying classified information.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Castel said:

"Take offense" is a turn of phrase. You're the one who raised objections to the post. Could you just not get hung up on it?

It's a discussion about Trump-aligned women facing sexism. It seems relevant to me why Ivanka was  being covered or discussed.

It would seem to be relevant wouldn't it? I mean, in the narrow sense you're right and she was talked about but the "why" seems incredibly important for the rest of this discussion.

So: why was Ivanka being covered or talked about, when she was? 

I have no idea what you are even asking me at this point.  Of course she is being covered, she's the first lady.

That's not what this conversation is about, like, at all.

 

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Is it wrong to critique someone's outfit, or was there something specifically gendered that you saw?

There's nothing inherently sexist about criticizing someones outfit.

I think that the same criticisms would have been found intolerant by many members of this board if leveled at Clinton, and likely for fairly legitimate reasons.

That's probably a road unnecessarily trod upon though, since we agree there are more egregious examples.

 

Quote

Ivanka or Melania?   I edited the last post to remark on Melania: I've seen Melania slut shaming, largely in celebrity-type rags, as well as feminist backlash against the Melania slut-shaming.  My experience has been that the left/ feminist writers vociferously renounced that.   I can't think of any writers of note who's thought the slut shaming was cool.

There's a ton of critique of Ivanka too, but I confess I haven't come across anything I found problematic or unfair.   She's been an enabler and surrogate for Trump, which is problematic for someone purporting to be an advocate for women, and so that deserves criticism.

You're right.  Embarrassing for me.  i was talking about Melania.  Thanks for the correction.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tempra said:

I have a problem with Trump using Twitter in general.  Whether the account being tied to a @gmail.com or @whitehouse.gov email account violates any law, however, is a separate question.  

Regardless of it violating law, you don't have a problem with him having an unsecured phone that he does business on? You don't have a problem with him using an unsecured email to conduct social media on?

I get that you don't think it's illegal, but can you seriously not think of all the different ways that the President might have some major issues if social media gets hacked, or if his personal phone gets hacked? You don't think people being able to easily pinpoint the location of a phone to a 30-foot area would be vaguely problematic for national security? Or having accidentally put on a program that monitors all voice communication around it and records it, which is a fairly trivial thing to do for a phone (as things like ok google and siri both have). 

Another way to ask it is this: how is deliberately using an unsecured, against-policy device that has been told to not be used not gross negligence in the Espionage Act sense of the word if something actually leaked?

 

[Swordfish]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm happy to say that misogynistic criticism against Conway and Ivanka sucks. But we were talking about one specific criticism, and that wasn't misogynistic. 

 

Conversations on message boards evolve.  I don't know what to tell you.

[Castel]

1. During the same timespan as Kellyanne getting light ribbing Trump was being mocked about his ties and suits.

2. Weren't Melania's nude photos leaked by a Murdoch rag? The story then died relatively quickly in the media, precisely cause of their squeamishness I imagine. The immigration story got more covered off of the photos.

3. Ivanka got covered because of her sitting in on meetings with the Japanese PM while allegedly having Japanese contracts, at a time when everyone was worried about Trump conflicts of interest.

If anything Ivanka got too much of a pass. People were passing her off as the moderate voice of the administration, which not only made a partisan issue of conflicts of interest but seemed to clearly fall victim to the same version of "pick the Donald Trump you hope will exist and not the one you hear" that so many others got hit by. Either it's a conflict of interest or not.

I'm not going to deny that they got shit,especially on open spaces like Twitter but the coverage of them from most reputable outlets seemed muted in that regard.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

34 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What difference does it make?

Does misogynistic criticism only matter if it's in the MSM?

I doubt that explanation would fly if these were criticisms of Hilary.

She faced similar criticism. Not the trophy wife stuff, but similar unseemly comments regarding her being in a marriage of convenience, etc. Kind of just goes with being in the public eye.

 

36 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Punching Nazis *is* okay though Imao 

I ain't shedding a tear for them

It's really not. I keep seeing Twitter posts echoing this along with pics of Indiana Jones and Captain America splash pages. Real life isn't a movie or a comic book and we aren't at war with the alt-right. Cold cocking someone in the face is cheap and cowardly.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

She faced similar criticism. Not the trophy wife stuff, but similar unseemly comments regarding her being in a marriage of convenience, etc. Kind of just goes with being in the public eye.

Well.. Sure.  Isn't that the part of the goal of feminism?  

That these kinds of sexist attitudes and actions are so commonplace, and that issue needs to be addressed?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Well.. Sure.  Isn't that the part of the goal of feminism?  

That these kinds of sexist attitudes and actions are so commonplace, and that issue needs to be addressed?

I can get behind that in regards to the Melania stuff, but I can't say I've seen much regarding Conway that would be considered sexist. 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I can get behind that in regards to the Melania stuff, but I can't say I've seen much regarding Conway that would be considered sexist. 

Agreed. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's really not. I keep seeing Twitter posts echoing this along with pics of Indiana Jones and Captain America splash pages. Real life isn't a movie or a comic book and we aren't at war with the alt-right. Cold cocking someone in the face is cheap and cowardly.

So? Are you Ned Stark, who only will fight honorably and fairly and play entirely with the rules your enemies disregard happily? 

 

[Castel]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

So? Are you Ned Stark, who only will fight honorably and fairly and play entirely with the rules your enemies disregard happily? 

 

Richard Spencer was punching people in the face?

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Castel said:

Richard Spencer was punching people in the face?

He has certainly been encouraging it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So? Are you Ned Stark, who only will fight honorably and fairly and play entirely with the rules your enemies disregard happily? 

If you think cold-cocking a guy who's giving an interview is going to defeat your enemy in any meaningful sort of way then have at. If you're going to justify this sort of behavior you should also be prepared to see it escalate on both sides.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

If you think cold-cocking a guy who's giving an interview is going to defeat your enemy in any meaningful sort of way then have at. If you're going to justify this sort of behavior you should also be prepared to see it escalate on both sides.

We've already seen riot police beating peaceful protesters in black lives matter marches, we've already seen protesters get beaten at Trump rallies, we've already seen people get pepper sprayed for protesting. 

It already did escalate. 

Sometimes nonviolence is a good part of the answer, and sometimes it's good to symbolically and literally punch a nazi. 

[Tywin et al.]

I feel like Trump's strategy of distracting everyone is working perfectly. There's been a lot of different things discussed on here today, some relevant, some not, but I've yet to see anyone talk about what might have been the biggest news story of the day IMO: Trump thinks torture works and left the door open to reintroducing it at some point in the future.

Also, it seems like Trump's proposed strategy for deport people who are here illegally is about as broad as humanly possible:

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/01/26/sanctuary-cities-immigration-and-the-wall

[Tempra]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Regardless of it violating law, you don't have a problem with him having an unsecured phone that he does business on? You don't have a problem with him using an unsecured email to conduct social media on?

I get that you don't think it's illegal, but can you seriously not think of all the different ways that the President might have some major issues if social media gets hacked, or if his personal phone gets hacked? You don't think people being able to easily pinpoint the location of a phone to a 30-foot area would be vaguely problematic for national security? Or having accidentally put on a program that monitors all voice communication around it and records it, which is a fairly trivial thing to do for a phone (as things like ok google and siri both have). 

Another way to ask it is this: how is deliberately using an unsecured, against-policy device that has been told to not be used not gross negligence in the Espionage Act sense of the word if something actually leaked?

 

You keep conflating an unwise action with an illegal action (now he is possibly violating the Espionage Act if someone hacks his phone?).  Unquestionably, I would agree that his actions are unwise. Whether they are illegal is far from certain, and I would like to read certain memoranda compiled by OLC and White House attorneys on the subject.  I'm not privy to that information and I suspect no one posting here is either. So, anyone purporting to claim that such act is illegal (or potentially illegal) is simply whistling dixie. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We've already seen riot police beating peaceful protesters in black lives matter marches, we've already seen protesters get beaten at Trump rallies, we've already seen people get pepper sprayed for protesting. 

It already did escalate. 

Sometimes nonviolence is a good part of the answer, and sometimes it's good to symbolically and literally punch a nazi. 

Sure and we've seen Trump supporters chased and beaten by organized mobs, and cops in Dallas shot and killed by someone who identified as BLM. It doesn't matter which side of the political argument you're on, violence is not the answer. Outside of self-defense of course. I don't think blindsiding a guy in the side of the face as he's talking to an interviewer counts. 

[Swordfish]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure and we've seen Trump supporters chased and beaten by organized mobs, and cops in Dallas shot and killed by someone who identified as BLM. It doesn't matter which side of the political argument you're on, violence is not the answer. Outside of self-defense of course. I don't think blindsiding a guy in the side of the face as he's talking to an interviewer counts. 

Could not possibly agree more.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tempra said:

You keep conflating an unwise action with an illegal action (now he is possibly violating the Espionage Act if someone hacks his phone?).

I don't, actually; you do. I never said it was illegal. I said it was a very bad thing and that people should have a problem with it. You challenged me on that. 

I do not specifically care if the action is illegal, and it doesn't particularly matter. If Trump somehow manages to inadvertently cause a massive foreign crisis because his phone was not secure, it doesn't matter in the slightest if it is illegal. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am protesting these actions on their legality. I am protesting them because they are INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND STUPID.

As to violation of the Espionage Act, basically it goes under the same thing that people wanted to do with Clinton - which is knowingly and willfully disregarding major security issues that result in a massive damaging leak. The problem with Clinton was that there was no smoking gun that she willfully disregarded the security issues AND there was no evidence of any actual damage caused. Both basically have to be true. But if that happens, it's going to be bad anyway, so I'd rather it just not happen to start with. 

Just now, Tempra said:

 Unquestionably, I would agree that his actions are unwise. Whether they are illegal is far from certain, and I would like to read certain memoranda compiled by OLC and White House attorneys on the subject.  I'm not privy to that information and I suspect no one posting here is either. So, anyone purporting to claim that such act is illegal (or potentially illegal) is simply whistling dixie. 

And since no one has claimed that they are illegal in this thread, you're totally fine.