U.S. Politics

[StefanAVFC]

lmao

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

lmao

What a tw**t - Couldn't give 2 minutes to someone he voted to send into a pointless war for oil. 

[TheAuthority]

5 hours ago, Straggler said:

Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Rudy, John Bolton, Tim Morrison will all have to decide if Trump is worth going to the mat for.  Pompeo and Bolton are the two most interesting to me. 

Bolton's input could be fascinating. This is a guy who despite all of the Neo-Con loons Bush had in his Iraq/Afghanistan War debacle administration had to resign his recess appointment as ambassador to the UN. The Senate was not going to confirm him because he was considered too crazy.

Skip forward 15 years and he's still a nut who basically believes we should nuke Iran, but he lasted under 6 months with Trump and obviously has no love for him. Could this wacko Republican who is to the right of the Project for the New American Century be the one who brings down Trump and become a hero to Trump haters. Popcorn at the ready.

[peterms]

On 15/05/2019 at 17:59, blandy said:

They say he has never worked for them as part of the Syria Douma FFM - my mistake. But I take your point.

I don't take the same view as you write about the Chlorine. The OPCW report as I read it said 

I completely accept your last comment about the denial - it looks like a non-denial denial - "he wasn't at any time part of the FFM isn't the same as "it's not a genuine document" - that seems to imply it is probably genuine. The reason why it was not used could range from "it doesn't support our preconceived verdict and we need to get something that does" (very bad)  through "internally there's been strong doubt on the nature of the work, let's get a second opinion" (if that were so, you'd expect the actual report to discuss or mention the conflicting possibilities, so still bad) to "We don't want to say so publicly, but he got it badly wrong and has lost his way" (very unlikely) to "it's a fake" (now, also unlikely).

So Yes, there is fog. No one comes out of it well. Like I said earlier - it all makes it impossible to find the actual truth for the likes of us.

The Mail have now published a piece by Hitchens, discussing the way the OPCW report was edited to produce a misleading impression that chlorine gas was used.  It includes the text of an internal email from OPCW staff protesting about the way the findings of staff investigating the incident were misrepresented.

Quote

The revelation appears to be the worst instance of ‘sexing-up’ in support of war since the invasion of Iraq and Tony Blair’s doctored dossiers. A whistleblower has made public the astonishing email of protest which was sent to senior officials at the OPCW. It says that the independent scientists’ official report on the Douma incident had been slashed and censored so severely that it:

• Misrepresented the facts – by leaving out key information;
• Hid the fact that the traces of chlorine found on the site were merely tiny trace elements, in parts per billion, and in forms that could have been found in any household bleach;
• Contained major deviations from the original report submitted by impartial experts, so that it had ‘morphed into something quite different’;
• Suppressed a total mismatch between the symptoms allegedly displayed by victims at the scene, and the effects of the chemicals which were actually found. The symptoms seen on harrowing videos shown at the time of the incident simply did not match the symptoms which would have been caused by any material found at the site.

The Mail on Sunday has seen the email of protest which one scientist at the OPCW submitted to his superiors. It refers to the original expert report from Douma which the email says was savagely censored...

...The leak follows other alarming developments concerning the OPCW’s report on Douma, which suggest an organisation in severe crisis. Last May, another leak from the OPCW’s HQ in the Hague cast grave doubt on claims that gas cylinders found at the Douma site had been dropped from the air, a vital part of the Western case against Syria.

An OPCW engineering and ballistics expert called Ian Henderson (who was not the leaker) had strongly suggested that two gas cylinders found in Douma and examined by the OPCW’s Fact-Finding Mission had been ‘manually placed’.

This vital detail too was left out of the OPCW’s own published report, which implied strongly that they had been dropped from the air. This was crucial as Syrian government helicopters were the only aircraft in the area. On this occasion the OPCW revealed that the Henderson document was genuine, probably unintentionally, by announcing a leak inquiry on May 16.

The OPCW – whose member nations meet in The Hague for a major conference tomorrow – is also in severe turmoil after reports of further whistleblowing on the radical US website Counterpunch. Its account was written by the veteran journalist Jonathan Steele (formerly a senior foreign correspondent at The Guardian, twice named International Reporter of the Year), based on the account of a whistleblower who he codenamed ‘Alex’.

‘Alex’ said that dissenting experts, protesting against the doctoring of their work, were invited to a meeting with three American officials who were ‘cursorily introduced without making clear which US agencies they represented’. He recounted that the three ‘told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack.’

The Mail on Sunday approached the OPCW for comment on the protest email on Wednesday, November 13, more than ten days ago. We supplied them with a complete text. Despite several further requests by phone and email, the OPCW had not responded by last night.

The OPCW has been in severe disarray before, precisely because its rulings are so sensitive.

In 2002, in the lead-up to the Iraq war, the OPCW’s then director, the Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani, was forced from office by intense US pressure. The US’s then ambassador to the UN was the ferocious pro-war hawk John Bolton, famed for his brusque and bullying manner to subordinates.

 

Quote

The leaked email in full

From: ********

Sent: 22nd June 2018 08:27

To: *********

Subject: Grave concern about the 'redacted' Douma report 

Dear ******,

I wish to express, as a member of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) team that conducted the investigation into the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April, my gravest concern at the redacted version of the FFM report, which I understand was at the behest of the ODG. (Office of the Director General). After reading this modified report, which incidentally no other team member who deployed into Douma has had the opportunity to do, I was struck by how much it misrepresents the facts. Many of the facts and observations outlined in the full version are inextricably interconnected and, by selectively omitting certain ones, an unintended bias has been introduced into the report, undermining its credibility. In other cases, some crucial facts that have remained in the redacted version have morphed into something quite different to what was initially drafted. If I may, I will outline some specific aspects to the redacted report that are particularly worrisome.

The statement in paragraph 8.3 of the final conclusions 'The team has sufficient evidence at this time to determine that chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical, was likely released from cylinders', is highly misleading and not supported by the facts. The only evidence available at this moment is that some samples collected at Locations 2 and 4 were in contact with one or more chemicals that contain a reactive chlorine atom. Such chemicals could include molecular chlorine, phosgene, cyanogen chloride, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen chloride or sodium hypochlorite (the major ingredient of household chlorine-based bleach). Purposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the possibilities is disingenuous. It is also worth noting that the term 'reactive chlorine-containing chemical' used in the redacted report is, in fact, inaccurate. It actually describes a reactive chemical that contains chlorine which itself (the chlorine) is not necessarily reactive e.g. chlorophenol. The original report uses the more accurate term 'a chemical containing reactive chlorine'.

The redacted report states that the gas was likely released from the cylinders (in Locations 2 and 4). The original report purposely emphasised the fact that, although the cylinders might have been the source of the suspected chemical release, there was insufficient evidence to affirm this. It is possible the error was simply a typo. This is a major deviation from the original report.

Paragraph 8.2 states that 'based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives, [...] detected in environmental samples'. Describing the levels as 'high' likely overstates the extent of levels of chlorinated organic derivatives detected. They were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.

The original report discusses in detail the inconsistency between the victims' symptoms, as reported by witnesses and seen in video recordings. Omitting this section of the report (including the Epidemiology which has been removed in its entirety) has a serious negative impact on the report as this section is inextricably linked to the chemical agent identified. It either supports or detracts from the confidence in the identity of any possible chemical. In this case the confidence in the identity of chlorine or any choking agent is drawn into question precisely because of the inconsistency with the reported and observed symptoms. The inconsistency was not only noted by the FFM team but strongly noted by three toxicologists with expertise in exposure to CW (Chemical Weapons) agents.

The original report has extensive sections regarding the placement of the cylinders at both locations as well as the relative damage caused to the impact points, compared to that caused to the cylinders suspected of being the sources of the toxic chemical. These sections are essentially absent from the redacted report. This information was important in assessing the likelihood of the 'presence' of toxic chemicals versus the 'use' of toxic chemicals.

A feature of this investigation and report was the robust and extensive scientific basis for sampling plans and analysing the data collected. A comprehensive bibliography of peer-reviewed scientific literature was attached to support and enhance the credibility of the work of the mission. This has unfortunately been omitted from the redacted report.

By singling out chlorine above other equally plausible substances containing reactive chlorine and presenting it as a fact in isolation creates, I believe, a level of partiality that would negatively impact on the perceived credibility of the report, and by extension that of the Organisation. I am requesting that the fact-finding report be released in its entirety as I fear that this redacted version no longer reflects the work of the team. The original report contains facts and observations that are all equally valid. The fact that inconsistencies are highlighted or observations not fully understood does not justify their omission. The inconsistencies and observations are based on the evidence and data collected. Further information in the future may help resolve them but the facts as they stand at present will not alter and need to be reported.

If the redacted version is to be released, I respectfully request to attach my differing observations, in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 62 of part II of the Verification Annex of the CWC.

Yours sincerely

 

 

[villakram]

On 24/11/2019 at 07:09, peterms said:

The Mail have now published a piece by Hitchens, discussing the way the OPCW report was edited to produce a misleading impression that chlorine gas was used.  It includes the text of an internal email from OPCW staff protesting about the way the findings of staff investigating the incident were misrepresented.

 

 

You filthy evil doer, posting such obvious Russian, commmunist, nazi, rascist, sexist, Chinese conspiracy theories!

Edited November 25, 2019 by villakram
w/ apologies to Cobra commander.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

You filthy evil doer, posting such obvious Russian, commmunist, nazi, rascist, sexist, Chinese conspiracy theories!

Not forgetting "Assadist", and "tin foil hat".  It's like a conditioned reflex.

[mjmooney]

Quote

The secret to Trump’s success? It’s sheer existential dread

Sheldon Solomon

Authoritarian populist leaders thrive on the fear of death – as we’ve been able to show in carefully controlled experiments

Sat 23 Nov 2019 

In a recent experiment, American participants were asked: “Please describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you” and “Write down as specifically as you can what you think will happen to you physically as you die and once you are dead.” Moments later, those who had been asked to contemplate their mortality reported more negative attitudes towards immigrants, greater opposition to a mosque being built in their neighbourhood, and a greater likelihood of voting for Donald Trump for president.

What could possibly explain these findings?

In The Denial of Death (1973), cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker argued that while humans share a basic biological predisposition towards self-preservation with all life forms, we are unique in our capacity for symbolic thought, including self-awareness. This gives rise to the unsettling realisation that death is inevitable, can occur at any time, and that we are ultimately no more significant or enduring than turtles or turnips.

The unvarnished awareness of death engenders potentially debilitating existential terror, which humans manage by embracing cultural worldviews – for example, a religious identity such as Christianity, or a national identity such as “Englishness”. These worldviews confer a sense that one is a person of value in a world of meaning, and hence eligible for immortality (either literally, through the heavens, afterlives and souls central to most religions; or symbolically, by being a member of a great and enduring tribe or nation, having children, amassing great fortunes or producing noteworthy works of art or science). People are therefore highly motivated to maintain faith in their cultural worldviews as a psychological bulwark against existential dread.

Becker then argued that because cultural worldviews are essentially symbolic, they can never completely overcome the terror of death. There is always residual death anxiety, a “rumble of panic” underneath everything. This free-floating panic settles on to those we regard as different to ourselves, as possible threats. Having assumed material form, this fear can at least be managed: in our minds these people become repositories of evil. They are then denigrated, demonised, dehumanised and, in some cases, destroyed.

Immigrants, including those who practise different religions, such as Muslims and Jews, have historically served as these scapegoats, as living embodiments of our existential dread.

Experiments carried out under the rubric of “terror management theory” – the framework I and my fellow researchers used for understanding these behaviours – corroborate Becker’s account. They illuminate the existential underpinnings of hostility and disdain toward designated outgroups. After being reminded of their mortality (by answering the questions above, being interviewed in front of a funeral parlour, or subliminally exposed to the word “death”), Christians had more favourable impressions of other Christians and more negative impressions of Jews; Germans sat closer to Germans and further away from Turkish immigrants; Iranians were more supportive of suicide bombings; and Americans advocated using nuclear, chemical and biological weapons against countries that posed no direct threat to the US.

 After being reminded of their mortality Christians had more favourable impressions of other Christians and more negative impressions of Jews
But how can these ideas help explain why death reminders increase support for Trump? The German sociologist Max Weber theorised that in times of historical upheaval, when existential anxieties are salient, people embrace charismatic political leaders. In 1951, moral philosopher Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, added that the primary impetus for populist movements is economic and psychological insecurity, leaving people “in desperate need of something … to live for”.

Authoritarian populist leaders, Hoffer argued, need not be intelligent or original. Rather, the primary qualifications “seem to be: audacity and a joy in defiance; an iron will; a fanatical conviction that he is in possession of the one and only truth; faith in his destiny and luck; a capacity for passionate hatred; contempt for the present; a cunning estimate of human nature; a delight in symbols (spectacles and ceremonials) … the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world … [and] some deliberate misrepresentation of facts”.

They transform followers’ fears into rage and righteous indignation directed toward designated outgroups for political purposes. For example, Trump campaigned for president by inflaming animosity towards Mexicans and Muslims. After the 2016 election, Trump admitted in calls to then Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto that Mexico needed to pay for the wall to fulfil his campaign promise, and to Malcolm Turnbull, then prime minister of Australia, that he would “look foolish” if he honoured a previous agreement to allow refugees to come to the US.

Studies confirm that mortal terror amplifies support for Trump. Prior to the election, participants reminded of being in pain had more favourable impressions of Hillary Clinton than Trump. However, impressions of Trump improved significantly if participants were reminded of their mortality. Moreover, Americans asked to think about the construction of a mosque in their neighbourhoods, or immigrants moving nearby, showed higher levels of nonconscious death thoughts – thus demonstrating that persistent efforts to demonise Muslims and immigrants had been quite successful. Americans also rated Trump more favourably after being asked to imagine a mosque or immigrants in their neighbourhoods.

People do not respond monolithically when existential concerns are aroused. For example, in response to a death reminder, French and US participants who scored high in rightwing authoritarianism – characterised by submission to authority, moral absolutism, and punitive intolerance – made more pejorative assessments of immigrants. However, participants who scored low on rightwing authoritarianism had more favourable impressions of immigrants after pondering their demise. Additionally, negative reactions to immigrants following death reminders were reduced when participants were also encouraged to think of universal human experiences shared by people from diverse cultures.

These findings suggest the hopeful possibility that we can encourage the development and maintenance of cultural worldviews that emphasise commonalities rather than differences between individuals and foster tolerance of such differences.

It is also important to acknowledge that support for Trump in the US, and similarly rightwing, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim populist movements in Europe, is not solely a defensive reaction to mortal terror. A host of complex political, economic, psychological and cultural considerations contribute to one’s political predilections. However, the fact that fleeting death reminders have a potent effect on political preferences conflicts with the democratic ideal that electoral outcomes result from rational deliberation.

Perhaps the best approach to fortifying those democratic ideals is to monitor, expose and oppose efforts by all candidates to exploit existential anxieties for personal and political gain.

When politicians claim we should vote for them because they are uniquely qualified or divinely ordained to eradicate evil, we should actively combat the inclination to allow mortal terror, rather than cogent assessments of candidates’ qualifications and positions on issues of importance, to determine our choices. Fearmongering mendacity would then become an electoral liability, rather than a potent political advantage.

• Sheldon Solomon is a professor of psychology at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York. He is co-author, with Jeff Greenberg & Tom Pyszczynski, of The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life

Guardian

[KenjiOgiwara]

On 23/11/2019 at 17:04, TheAuthority said:

What a tw**t - Couldn't give 2 minutes to someone he voted to send into a pointless war for oil. 

WMDs mate. WMDs. ✌

[KenjiOgiwara]

Personally I just love how the cheesedoodle looking orangutan argued he shouldn't be impeached cause of the stock market. Just beyond words. 

[peterms]

7 hours ago, villakram said:

You filthy evil doer, posting such obvious Russian, commmunist, nazi, rascist, sexist, Chinese conspiracy theories!

The tactic in the media, this article apart, appears to be to avoid the story, possibly in order not to have to correct previous stories, possibly to comply with "requests" from the spooks.

Quite astonishing.

Free press my arse.

[snowychap]

Erm. WTF?

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Erm. WTF?

NSFW 

 

[il_serpente]

Devin Nunes will be happy with that.

[LondonLax]

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

This is super-relatable though.

[sne]

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

Erm. WTF?

Scuba Steve  

 

 

[snowychap]

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

 

[Davkaus]

So is it an actual requirement to be senile when running to be president?

 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

My personal favourite message (unaccountably, it didn't win him the nomination and he's now dropped out):