U.S. Politics

[VILLAMARV]

On 14/07/2018 at 20:50, Xann said:

A lot is changing quickly.

Even on here in the Global Warming thread, the naysayers have mostly become silent since the thread was started.

VLV doesn't perceive a relevant distinction between the dark grey and pitch black of the two most recent US administrations. 

Who to proffer as a contrasting source?

It is. And I certainly wasn't knocking the choice. Attenborough and the output from BBC Bristol and all that is a great example of something we actually excel in still on the world stage.

I was just pointing out the process, while effective, has much to do with the status quo. Boiling political thinking down to a choice between celebrity A or celebrity B. Hence I removed the pics from the quote.

Wound me up no end at Brexit that I met some people who seemed to be voting for either side based on what celebrities endorsed what argument.

It ultimately aids the narrowing of the debate that @Keyblade is quoting Chomsky on imo.

[villakram]

Interesting dicussions over the past few days.

Meanwhile, a certain former secretary of state named Albright has been doing the rounds promoting her latest tome. As she's against Trump, the red carpet has been rolled out and platform after platform has been provided. I'd love to know what all those parents, siblings and grandparents would make of this... those that we haven't murdered in the meantime anyway.

But, ya that baby Trump thing was deadly craic.

 

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

It is. And I certainly wasn't knocking the choice. Attenborough and the output from BBC Bristol and all that is a great example of something we actually excel in still on the world stage.

I was just pointing out the process, while effective, has much to do with the status quo. Boiling political thinking down to a choice between celebrity A or celebrity B. Hence I removed the pics from the quote.

Wound me up no end at Brexit that I met some people who seemed to be voting for either side based on what celebrities endorsed what argument.

It ultimately aids the narrowing of the debate that @Keyblade is quoting Chomsky on imo.

Agree with this. If Michael Gove has taught us anything (other than the shitness of Michael Gove), it's that appeals to authority or expertise aren't persuasive enough any more. David Attenborough has a magnificent oeuvre of work behind him, but if he dies tomorrow, the issue doesn't go away. If his reputation for some reason took a knock, it wouldn't be solved. The issue is bigger than one man.  

[StefanAVFC]

http://www.businessinsider.com/sacha-baron-cohen-who-is-america-arm-preschoolers-guns-2018-7/

Quote

In video from Sacha Baron Cohen's new show, GOP members of congress support arming preschoolers with guns

Sacha Baron Cohen is back to duping unsuspecting public figures for a new Showtime program, "Who Is America?" which premieres on Sunday night.

One video clip from the show that's floating around the internet shows several former and current Republican lawmakers endorsing the idea of arming school children as young as four with guns.

The clip opens with Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida saying that "typically members of Congress don't just hear a story about a program and then indicate whether they support it or not."

Immediately after Gaetz's remark, the clip cuts to former Sen. Trent Lott saying "I support the kinder-guardian program." Lott, who served as senator for Mississippi from 1989 to 2007, was the Senate Majority Leader from 1996 to 2001. Before joining the Senate, Lott served 16 years in the US House of Representatives.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[Xann]

8 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

@KeybladeI was just pointing out the process, while effective, has much to do with the status quo. Boiling political thinking down to a choice between celebrity A or celebrity B. Hence I removed the pics from the quote.

What level of debate you going to get when...

On 14/07/2018 at 11:59, A'Villan said:

Is it wrong that people want to prevent him (Trump) from damaging not only the country they live in, but the world at large

 

On 14/07/2018 at 12:22, Vive_La_Villa said:

Is this even happening though?

There will need to be a little education or debate is meaningless.

 

I'd really hoped that VLV would have known that David Attenborough was a stand up guy already.

[Keyblade]

I can't believe an American, much less the "President, Council on Foreign Relations" would say something like this with a straight face.

 

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

http://www.businessinsider.com/sacha-baron-cohen-who-is-america-arm-preschoolers-guns-2018-7/

 

Just all levels of terrible.  People actually think it's a good idea to arm children as young as 4.  Not only that, but to encourage it they use cheap puns like it's all sorts of fun.  "First grader to first grenader".

Unreal.  So, so sad.

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

What level of debate you going to get when...

There will need to be a little education or debate is meaningless.

I'd really hoped that VLV would have known that David Attenborough was a stand up guy already.

Don't get me wrong if the level of debate on VT wasn't in the gutter I'd probably not be here

I'm pretty amazed someone in the UK didn't know who Attenborough was. He's been a great servant to zoology and conservation. He must have led a fascinating life. He acquits himself well and seems to land on the right side of any humanitarian issues. He comes across as a stand up guy. I've never met him though so I wouldn't know with any certainty.

Like I said, I wasn't knocking the choice of subject at all and FWIW I liked the bit to VLV and totally agree with you I reckon on the Global Warming issue and indeed many issues across these boards.

And do what you will, who am I to stop you? Like I said, it was effective.

Just an aside to remind everyone that boiling things down to "Who are you going to believe? This guy off the telly? or this guy off the telly?" isn't a favourite debating technique of mine.

Quote

"You know, it is a terrible thing to appear on television, because people think that you actually know what you're talking about." - David Attenborough

And not I would know, but Dave there would maybe not like getting dragged into it

Quote

"I'm not a propagandist, I'm not a polemicist; my primary interest is just looking at and trying to understand how animals work." - David Attenborough

Although I'd wager, deep down, he thinks Trump's a moron

Just that part of the change that needs to happen imho is within ourselves in the way we think, the way we construct argument, the way we deconstruct the powers held over us through media manipulation, framing of the debate, marketing, advertising and so on.

This bit basically

Quote

"The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders." - Edward Bernays

My objection being from a position of believing wholeheartedly that character and intellect are distinct from one another. The minute we accept any system that dismisses intellectual opinion based on character and populism we're playing into their hands imo. Maybe it's one for the Brexit thread? Like I said in my initial reply It's kind of how we got here imo. And not that I'm suggesting you're doing that or disagree with your post, just suggesting that when we then use the same techniques in counter-point it legitimises them in the social discourse.

As Admiral Ackbar might say. "It's a trap"

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 hours ago, Xann said:

What level of debate you going to get when...

 

There will need to be a little education or debate is meaningless.

 

I'd really hoped that VLV would have known that David Attenborough was a stand up guy already.

I never said he wasn’t. 

I’ve since said I understand why people are protesting against Trump but I still think he is a lesser of two Evils and if Clinton had been in power there would have been a bigger threat to world security.

Yet hardly any protests and everyone would be happy. 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I still think he is a lesser of two Evils and if Clinton had been in power there would have been a bigger threat to world security.

Why?

[Vive_La_Villa]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Why?

Do a little research and you’ll see what her role has been in US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as well as arming Syrian rebel’s.

But who cares about that. Trump is a sexist racist monster. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Do a little research and you’ll see what her role has been in US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as well as arming Syrian rebel’s.

But who cares about that. Trump is a sexist racist monster. 

No.

I'm asking you to justify your viewpoint. Don't deflect with 'google it'.

It's your statement, defend it.

[Xann]

17 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

 I understand why people are protesting against Trump but I still think he is a lesser of two Evils and if Clinton had been in power there would have been a bigger threat to world security.

She is a cold establishment bitch and a threat to World security. It was a shit day when her connections landed her the Democrat hot seat ahead of Sanders.

Yet the Republicans managed to put forward someone worse - Someone not content with fueling a new arms race on Earth, someone that wants to militarise space, because, er, we don't know really? To excite and distract morons maybe?

[Vive_La_Villa]

40 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

No.

I'm asking you to justify your viewpoint. Don't deflect with 'google it'.

It's your statement, defend it.

I thought I just did. Imagine the outrage if Trump had said this. 

“If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We Would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”

On that note I don’t want to continue any further debate with you. You’re clearly very emotional about it all wheras I don’t really care that much. 

[StefanAVFC]

11 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I thought I just did. Imagine the outrage if Trump had said this. 

“If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We Would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”

On that note I don’t want to continue any further debate with you. You’re clearly very emotional about it all wheras I don’t really care that much. 

Eh?

I literally just asked you to stand behind your viewpoint, you told me to google it, then told me I was emotional? Poor really. If you could point out where I've acted emotionally then I'd be grateful.

Also, yes it is a stupid thing to say. I'm no Hillary fan, she was an awful candidate. But Trump has stirred the pot much more in Iran with his actions.

Edited July 16, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[Seat68]

33 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I thought I just did. Imagine the outrage if Trump had said this. 

“If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We Would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”

On that note I don’t want to continue any further debate with you. You’re clearly very emotional about it all wheras I don’t really care that much. 

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/24/did-hillary-really-say-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran.html

Quote

Did Hillary Really Say, «If I'm the president, we will attack Iran»?

As many of my readers know, I frequently condemn America’s Establishment ‘news’ media, for distortions and outright lying, especially about politicians, federal officials, and international relations – the matters that America’s aristocracy are united in their determination to control, and whose ‘news’ coverage they therefore control for that purpose (to deceive the voters to vote for their candidates).

However, I’ve not yet condemned America’s non-Establishment ‘news’ media, which (as will be indicated here) are sometimes as bad or even worse. Now is a time to do so, because the allegation that Hillary Clinton said she would «attack Iran» if elected, has become widespread, both online and in print; and via both mainstream and ‘alternative’ news.

* * *

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported, on 22 April 2008, that Hillary had said that day on ABC’s Good Morning America, «I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them».

CNN headlined «Obama: Clinton’s ‘obliterate’ Iran statement too much like Bush», and quoted that very excerpt from her statement, providing some of the important surrounding context behind it.

More recently, the ‘alternative news’ ‘journalist’ Stephen Lendman headlined «Hillary Clinton: ‘If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them’», and he implied that this statement by Clinton was made while «she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention». Nothing like that was in her speech there (nor at any other AIPAC convention). So, Lendman’s report was made-up, even if its source, Tapper’s account, might also have been made-up (which, as I’ll explain, I doubt to have been the case).  

Furthermore, Tapper’s news-report provided essential context for that statement of hers (context which was also reflected in CNN’s report that was based on his), and this essential context changes in a very important way the meaning of the excerpt just cited: «Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on ‘Good Morning America’ Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. ‘I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,’ Clinton said. ‘In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.’» That news-report by Tapper included a streamer saying, «Watch the full interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on ‘GMA’ Tuesday», but it’s actually dead (there’s no link there), and ABC provides no transcript at all, nor even a video with that segment; so, Tapper’s account is the only remaining source regarding the interview. However, from the veracity-checks I routinely do, I have found that Tapper, unlike Lendman (and unlike Establishment ‘reporters’ in general), can be trusted, because I’ve found the assertions that he makes to be true, at least so far as they go, even if at a deeper level some of his statements are misleading (in favor of the standard misconceptions, of course – but that’s not involved here).

 

[Xann]

30 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/24/did-hillary-really-say-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran.html

Pepe The Frog is a lying word removed.

[Czechlad]

Trump wants to create a joint cyber security force with Russia....

[Straggler]

25 minutes ago, Czechlad said:

Trump wants to create a joint cyber security force with Russia....

Yes because the US witch hunt about Russian tampering with the US 2016 election that is making the relationship between the USA and Russia poor.  Not the tampering.  The tampering is apparently ok, however the investigation of the tampering is bang out of order.  Therefore the only logical conclusion is to team up with the Russians that did the tampering to ensure it cannot be investigated by the country that it effected so that the Russians don't feel insulted by having their tampering investigated.

Not word for word what was said today, but it is a pretty good approximation of the mental gymnastics that we are being asked to go through.

[Straggler]

 

Says a former CIA Director