The General Election

[zoogs]

The "problem" is not what Hillary did or didn't do or what she's doing now or may or may not do in the future. 

 

The problem is US. Confronted with this choice we made the wrong one. We are still here. We'll keep letting guys like Trump sniff at or win the presidency, and retain control of lower and local chambers of government, so long as we fail to consider it important enough to present a united front against politicians like that.

 

Either this is the case, or the current events unfolding before us are not really "problems" at all but more or less the same as it always has been.

[RedDenver]

20 minutes ago, zoogs said:

The "problem" is not what Hillary did or didn't do or what she's doing now or may or may not do in the future. 

 

The problem is US. Confronted with this choice we made the wrong one. We are still here. We'll keep letting guys like Trump sniff at or win the presidency, and retain control of lower and local chambers of government, so long as we fail to consider it important enough to present a united front against politicians like that.

 

Either this is the case, or the current events unfolding before us are not really "problems" at all but more or less the same as it always has been.

I'd say the problem is the system that gave us Hillary and Trump. It's why we've been getting the candidates we have for the last few decades, and why it'll continue that way for the foreseeable future.

[zoogs]

Well, there are a number of problems with the system, and indeed there are no systems without flaws. 

 

That does nothing to erase the other, separate, and very consequential problem of who we are and how we voted when given this choice.

[BigRedBuster]

What the holy hell is going on?

 

 

[zoogs]

 

The Intercept's one-sided Russia alignment continues to baffle me. They'll pounce when they sense an opportunity, like the above. They'll stay mum (largely) on stories like this (correct me if I'm wrong). 

 

They don't not get it, either. Recently (I think I posted this in the 'where to get your news' thread), they took The Post to task for some fawningly saccharine portrayals of the so-called "new" Saudi era. They know exactly what they're doing with Russia. The question is, why?

[RedDenver]

43 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

The Intercept's one-sided Russia alignment continues to baffle me. They'll pounce when they sense an opportunity, like the above. They'll stay mum (largely) on stories like this (correct me if I'm wrong). 

 

They don't not get it, either. Recently (I think I posted this in the 'where to get your news' thread), they took The Post to task for some fawningly saccharine portrayals of the so-called "new" Saudi era. They know exactly what they're doing with Russia. The question is, why?

Did you read the article in the post above yours? Greenwald sources his claims. I was starting to think like you do that the Intercept was biased, but the more these Russia-related stories turn out to be false, the more Greenwald looks to have been correct the whole time.

 

EDIT: And by "correct", I mean Greenwald has been right not to trust US govt source claims without evidence.

[zoogs]

I'm not saying he didn't source his claims. That doesn't mean he's not unbiased. Bias isn't even the issue here, agenda is.

 

There is not "nothing" when it comes to Russia, but every time something like the above happens Greenwald can be counted on to vociferously sound the death knell on anti-Russia "conspiracies". Did the WSJ not source the above? It's almost like Greenwald is determined to remain blind to Russia's desires and activities, except he can't possibly be. So the question is why he wants to present a highly one-sidded, Russo-centric view of reality. They've got quite a bit in common with Assange in this respect, and of course, common roots as well.

[RedDenver]

27 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I'm not saying he didn't source his claims. That doesn't mean he's not unbiased. Bias isn't even the issue here, agenda is.

 

There is not "nothing" when it comes to Russia, but every time something like the above happens Greenwald can be counted on to vociferously sound the death knell on anti-Russia "conspiracies". Did the WSJ not source the above? It's almost like Greenwald is determined to remain blind to Russia's desires and activities, except he can't possibly be. So the question is why he wants to present a highly one-sidded, Russo-centric view of reality. They've got quite a bit in common with Assange in this respect, and of course, common roots as well.

Greenwald's article came out about 2 hours after the WSJ article, and given the length of Greenwald's article, I can't agree that he wrote it just to counter the WSJ article. Also, a major section of Greenwald's article starts with this paragraph (I tried to post the font exactly as it appeared, so emphasis is from the article):

Quote

NONE OF THIS means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inboxes (a claim for which, just by the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention, have now been repudiated.

 

I think it's far more reasonable to think that Greenwald is reporting on the false stories and retractions and simply doesn't agree with the official story than that he's somehow trying to prop up Russia.

 

Edit: Mean to also quote this line regarding Russia and Wikileaks:

Quote

Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin?

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by RedDenver

[zoogs]

Hm. I hadn't even thought that he was countering any particular article. I actually thought WSJ came out after Greenwald; that's the order in which I saw them.

 

I wouldn't call that a "major section", because this caveat is more or less elided completely in the tenor of The Intercept's reporting. I think the charitable view of this is that as an American he's much more interested in holding our own government accountable. But he'll really, really grasp at anything to try to discredit the Russia story. I don't know. I'm not slamming Greenwald wholesale on everything, it's just his Russia stuff seems so full-throated it's overboard. 

 

Like, why is that Twitter story not the story? Or Facebook? Why is it the Intercept's mission to minimize these or reduce them to caveats amidst their constant beating of the "See, the Russia Story is a Big Nothingburger/Hoax/Conspiracy" drum?

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

It's pretty weak of Zuckerberg to equate Trump complaining about Facebook to people being upset Facebook let Russians purchase a crapload of highly-charged political ads and publish a boatload of fake news to drive an agenda.

 

To me, it seems one side there has legitimate beef. The other is just... whining. Because that side whines a lot. About everything. 

[RedDenver]

12 hours ago, zoogs said:

Hm. I hadn't even thought that he was countering any particular article. I actually thought WSJ came out after Greenwald; that's the order in which I saw them.

 

I wouldn't call that a "major section", because this caveat is more or less elided completely in the tenor of The Intercept's reporting. I think the charitable view of this is that as an American he's much more interested in holding our own government accountable. But he'll really, really grasp at anything to try to discredit the Russia story. I don't know. I'm not slamming Greenwald wholesale on everything, it's just his Russia stuff seems so full-throated it's overboard. 

 

Like, why is that Twitter story not the story? Or Facebook? Why is it the Intercept's mission to minimize these or reduce them to caveats amidst their constant beating of the "See, the Russia Story is a Big Nothingburger/Hoax/Conspiracy" drum?

The article above points out literally dozens of times there have been false reports about Russia stuff and also contains a paragraph about that not meaning other Russia stuff isn't true. Do you want Greenwald (or anyone) to stop reporting about the false stories? I don't think that you do, so how else can this be reported to meet your standards?

 

I guess I'm somewhat perplexed by your stance here. All media is biased in some way, so even if Greenwald has a bias against the Russia stuff, how is that any different than Maddow who breathlessly reports every Russia-related rumor? If I'm watching the MSM, I know they have a pro-war slant historically so I keep that bias in mind. I know Maddow has a Russia-is-the-devil slant and keep that in mind. And Greenwald has a US-government-always-lies slant and keep that in mind. Both Maddow and Greenwald could be right or could be blinded by their bias on any given story, but I think they both contribute useful information that makes me check their sources and wonder about my own biases.

[zoogs]

I've seen news outlets hold each other accountable without the heavy agenda pushing overlaid on top of it. And yeah, being overzealous and running with bad stuff on a possibly overhyped Russia story is worthy of the criticism. It seems slightly less bad than a determined blindness on Russia, however. And IMO, The Intercept veers in that direction. 

 

For example, Wikileaks/Assange/etc could be said to merely have an anti-US bias, which is true enough, and many of the criticisms they levy are important and valid. EQUALLY important is the fact that Assange functionally behaves as a Kremlin mouthpieces, wittingly or not. Their muted or utter lack of desire to hold Russia (and select other countries) accountable, coupled with the wanton eagerness with which they pursue every anti-American thread, paints a very troubling picture of their intentions.

 

I don't know that The Intercept is at that level (actually, it's almost certainly not). But again, they beat this drum hard, and the fact that they do things this way, so determinedly across the board, calls into question their message. Even if you do agree that other parts of the media are being careless with how much they want to run/hype up the story (and I do).

 

I hope that clarifies it. I'm not one to just take exception to "anti-American" bias, and I'm generally quite a fan of The Intercept and Glen Greenwald. 

[RedDenver]

I don't see a better thread to put this in, so putting it here. I've mentioned political economist Mark Blyth a few times. He gave a presentation at UNL recently on the topic "Why People Vote for Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests" and talks extensively about reasons why people voted the way they did. Blyth concludes that people do vote in their interests, it's just that they have a different perspective on what their interests really are. Here's the presentation (transcript below the video if you'd rather read/skim it):

"Why People Vote for Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests"

[Danny Bateman]

Just carrying over you and Knapp's discussion to this thread, Red.

 

I agree that Trump was a middle finger vote but a middle finger to the establishment, not to Obama.

 

Why not both?

My understanding is Trump's win was on the twofold: A) He juiced GOP base turnout to a level not seen under Romney/McCain (most likely meaning disaffected rural voters who didn't trust the GOP establishment), importantly in swing states like Florida/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania where he barely eked out Clinton AND B) a subset of Obama-Trump voters who defected after previously being blue.

 

It also didn't help that Clinton couldn't maximize her base turnout to Obama levels (particularly the African-American vote).

 

But my point is I think both opinions are valid. I think Trump's election was a middle finger to both the GOP establishment AND Obama. Core Trump voters are the most likely to share explicitly HIS policy positions while NOT sharing the GOP establishment. These are the folks who feel "left behind," as it were, think politics is broken, and just wanted to send him to shake things up.

 

At the same time, the whole of the GOP base is strongly conditioned to despise Obama and almost reflexively support anyone who promises to undo his accomplishments.

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

Just carrying over you and Knapp's discussion to this thread, Red.

 

 

Why not both?

My understanding is Trump's win was on the twofold: A) He juiced GOP base turnout to a level not seen under Romney/McCain (most likely meaning disaffected rural voters who didn't trust the GOP establishment), importantly in swing states like Florida/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania where he barely eked out Clinton AND B) a subset of Obama-Trump voters who defected after previously being blue.

 

It also didn't help that Clinton couldn't maximize her base turnout to Obama levels (particularly the African-American vote).

 

But my point is I think both opinions are valid. I think Trump's election was a middle finger to both the GOP establishment AND Obama. Core Trump voters are the most likely to share explicitly HIS policy positions while NOT sharing the GOP establishment. These are the folks who feel "left behind," as it were, think politics is broken, and just wanted to send him to shake things up.

 

At the same time, the whole of the GOP base is strongly conditioned to despise Obama and almost reflexively support anyone who promises to undo his accomplishments.

Like I said in the other thread, I'm sure there are some that voted for Trump just as a middle finger to Obama. But how many of those would have voted for whoever had an R next to their name, because those aren't really votes against Obama are they?

 

EDIT: Also, the link above to the Blyth talk discusses some of this.

Edited October 30, 2017 by RedDenver