You can tell this is the craziest election in our history, because it's been over for a month and shit keeps getting crayer.
I imagine having Obama voted in was pretty crazy for the white supremacists of America when he first got voted in. We kept on getting news stories of "the first non-white American Presidents" for months. Not to mention the influence on forms of media and writing.
I guess voting in a really dumb Nazi as your leader is similarly worrying for those outside of the white supremacist American population.
The outcome is not what has made this election crazy. While the candidates themselves qualified this year for one of the most outrageous, it's been things from outside their campaigns that put it over the top.
Teen Vogue got really good at reporting politics. Who knows where the fuck all this election stuff is going to head. Hoping someone gets arrested or convicted of crimes because it feels like it happens to no one in the GOP at this point.
Teen Vogue got really good at reporting politics. Who knows where the fuck all this election stuff is going to head. Hoping someone gets arrested or convicted of crimes because it feels like it happens to no one in the GOP at this point.
Was the Russian influence a disinformation campaign or a whistleblower incident?
Think Watergate, if a foreign power had leaked the details rather than an American would Nixon have been able to remain in office? Unless the information released was false the source of the information should not be extremely important.
Was the Russian influence a disinformation campaign or a whistleblower incident?
Think Watergate, if a foreign power had leaked the details rather than an American would Nixon have been able to remain in office? Unless the information released was false the source of the information should not be extremely important.
Maybe, except for one problem - they specifically withheld information(They allegedly also hacked the RNC, but never released it), and they also released it to a Russian-friendly actor who they knew wouldn't question it(wikileaks), and they also timed it specifically to do the most damage.
Just because the information may not be false, doesn't mean you can't weaponize it - as Cardinal Richelieu allegedly(and probably apocryphally) said, If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Not to mention, the idea that it's solely leaked information is such a small fraction of the picture that it's the next best thing to false, it's no secret that they were running a broad-spectrum disinfo and agitprop campaign, not just leaking stolen information.
In addition to that, there was basically nothing in the leaked DNC mails. All the outrage was based almost exclusively on spin. It operated basically on the principal where a giant outrage news headline gets featured prominently and the retraction later is somewhere tiny on page 12 in the border columns. American media was played like a fiddle by exploiting the rampant sensationalism.
So collision between a national party and the media is "nothing"???
Yes, because there wasn't any. I guarantee you, as a professional, not only that what you see there is perfectly normal, there's going to be very similar correspondence sent to the RNC. I've sent similar emails myself, albeit not to the DNC. It's not collusion - it's pretty much just standard procedure for covering a campaign. I understand where you're coming from - when you're not familiar with how the sausage is made, standard reporting practice can look pretty sinister, especially if someone's primed the pump by telling you there's some sort of naughty business going on - but there's simply nothing really sinister or out of the ordinary there.
This went beyond basic journalistic fact checking and verification. We have proof of DNC leadership and the media working together to publish certain narratives at certain times to support a particular candidate. During a primary election no less!
So collision between a national party and the media is "nothing"???
The reverse communication is paid for political advertising which has more sway and has the scope to misdirect many voters.
I'm assuming you meant "collusion" which is more or less communication and information flow between a private reporting entity and a political party in this instance. The media should act in the public interest at this point, with the information gained. Hence why Snowden released his information to major media outlets rather than making it public to everyone.
We have proof of DNC leadership and the media working together to publish certain narratives at certain times to support a particular candidate. During a primary election no less!
I don't think you do, but please, show us. But since I've read the entire dump - at least, what's been released - I don't think you're going to be able to show anything I've not seen before.
Wikileaks is a far right group: that much has been clear for a long time now.
Is this to say anything coming from wikileaks, past, present, or future is fruit of the poisoned tree?
Have you forgotten the diplomatic cable leak of 2010. I'm asking you to draw a line in the sand here.
If the diplomatic cables were fruit of the poisoned tree why weren't you complaining in 2010? If they weren't when did they cross that line? I'm asking you to more fully flesh out your statements.
and they also released it to a Russian-friendly actor who they knew wouldn't question it(wikileaks)
Is this to say anything coming from wikileaks, past, present, or future is fruit of the poisoned tree?
Past, depends on how far back - they always had a habit of editorializing and timing leaks for maximum damage, but they wern't explicitly right-wing or pro-russian. I'd say around the point people started leaving en masse - mid 2008 to 2010 - is about the period they really went off the rials. Present, almost certainly, future, likely, but unknown.
Due to their history of editorializing and weaponizing information, I would say that taking them at face value is a very bad idea, as would be uncritically taking on what they release. Especially considering that recently, there's evidence they released documents that they claimed they'd "Verified", but turned out to have been modified(and in some cases, created) by the group that gave them to wikileaks, who we're almost certain are the Russian government.
I'm not saying automatically dismiss - but I would say to be very careful, and treat anything they say or release with EXTREME skepticism. Even if the information seems accurate, be very skeptical - after all, it's not hard to give someone a handful of separate facts, in a particular context, and letting them fill in the gaps themselves with the inaccurate conclusion you want to lead them to, and congratulations, you've lied and mislead someone, without ever directly telling a debunkable lie.
So, less a right wing hate group, and more a group of "journalists" with questionable verification practices and sketchy motivations. That's more fleshed out than before and tidily sums up why the "leak" of DNC nonsense need be taken with the tiniest grain of salt.
So, less a right wing hate group, and more a group of "journalists" with questionable verification practices and sketchy motivations. That's more fleshed out than before and tidily sums up why the "leak" of DNC nonsense need be taken with the tiniest grain of salt.
Well, They are certainly a right-wing group, just not necessarily a hate group per se. But tiniest - brother, if you think that's tiny, y'all need to start watching your sodium intake, gonna give yourself a heart attack.
You have to evaluate the target of a leak's release and the history/agenda of the leaker.
Wikileaks for some time had begun targeting primarily liberal institutions and engaging in doxxing of people who are particularly vulnerable. Right around the time of this shift, their social media began increasingly reference and use anti-semitic shibboleths. https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/
The abundance of evidence is that since at least 2014, wikileaks has had a pretty targeted agenda and found itself on the bad side of almost every issue...
So, less a right wing hate group, and more a group of "journalists" with questionable verification practices and sketchy motivations. That's more fleshed out than before and tidily sums up why the "leak" of DNC nonsense need be taken with the tiniest grain of salt.
Well, They are certainly a right-wing group, just not necessarily a hate group per se. But tiniest - brother, if you think that's tiny, y'all need to start watching your sodium intake, gonna give yourself a heart attack.
I use tiny in the original meaning of the idiom. When it was coined salt was mad expensive, therefore loads of salt meant seriousness and legitimacy. Less salt was more dubious, he only gave us a grain of salt, how can we know it will work/it is real? A tiny grain? That is straight up unbelievable.
You know, I didn't know that. Fair play man, I didn't get what you meant - I was only familiar with the popular version, where the bigger the grain, the more dubious it is, rather than the correct version.
I thought that the taste of rotten meat was disgusting, and salt would mask the taste. So the only way to swallow something would be with a grain of salt.
I guess then a bit more salt would help you swallow something even more odious/suspicious.
Ya know the damn sherrif never really explained why I couldn't bring pepper into Nottingham. Crossbows I get, weapon of war. But delicious spices? Why?
Ya know the damn sherrif never really explained why I couldn't bring pepper into Nottingham. Crossbows I get, weapon of war. But delicious spices? Why?
Ya know the damn sherrif never really explained why I couldn't bring pepper into Nottingham. Crossbows I get, weapon of war. But delicious spices? Why?
That shit's for the king, not for you peasants.
But Sherrif, I'm definitely bringing this directly to the king, and absolutely have no intentions of selling it for profit. What if I put 3 shiny doubloons on this here bag?
It is commonly held that the principal action in the Robin Hood tales take place in the very late 12th century, around the time of the Third Crusade (given the appearance of King Richard as a crusader). At the time, Acre was a major trading hub and the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, so it was naturally the target of much anti-Islamic sentiment in continental Europe.
Pepper was a prized trade good throughout the Mediterranean, but became known as a premiere example of the excesses of the Caliphs as the Crusades wore on. It was a simple matter to foment anti-Islamic sentiment by banning those goods most associated with the culture - and as a great number of spices originated in India and had to be routed through the Middle East, it was a logical matter to ban their sale throughout continental Europe. No trade in spices means less funding to the countries they were trying to conquer in the Crusades. Richard put this into effect before actually departing on Crusade, and it remained in effect after his return.
This worked very well, and some scholars speculate that the decrease in sales actually contributed to the fall of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade. Richard's decision to ban the spice was heralded as a brilliant strategic move, and the English continue to celebrate his success to this day by making literally the blandest fucking food on the planet.
Comments
Teen Vogue got really good at reporting politics. Who knows where the fuck all this election stuff is going to head. Hoping someone gets arrested or convicted of crimes because it feels like it happens to no one in the GOP at this point.
Think Watergate, if a foreign power had leaked the details rather than an American would Nixon have been able to remain in office? Unless the information released was false the source of the information should not be extremely important.
Just because the information may not be false, doesn't mean you can't weaponize it - as Cardinal Richelieu allegedly(and probably apocryphally) said, If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Not to mention, the idea that it's solely leaked information is such a small fraction of the picture that it's the next best thing to false, it's no secret that they were running a broad-spectrum disinfo and agitprop campaign, not just leaking stolen information.
I'm assuming you meant "collusion" which is more or less communication and information flow between a private reporting entity and a political party in this instance. The media should act in the public interest at this point, with the information gained. Hence why Snowden released his information to major media outlets rather than making it public to everyone.
I don't think you do, but please, show us. But since I've read the entire dump - at least, what's been released - I don't think you're going to be able to show anything I've not seen before.
Have you forgotten the diplomatic cable leak of 2010. I'm asking you to draw a line in the sand here.
If the diplomatic cables were fruit of the poisoned tree why weren't you complaining in 2010? If they weren't when did they cross that line? I'm asking you to more fully flesh out your statements.
Due to their history of editorializing and weaponizing information, I would say that taking them at face value is a very bad idea, as would be uncritically taking on what they release. Especially considering that recently, there's evidence they released documents that they claimed they'd "Verified", but turned out to have been modified(and in some cases, created) by the group that gave them to wikileaks, who we're almost certain are the Russian government.
I'm not saying automatically dismiss - but I would say to be very careful, and treat anything they say or release with EXTREME skepticism. Even if the information seems accurate, be very skeptical - after all, it's not hard to give someone a handful of separate facts, in a particular context, and letting them fill in the gaps themselves with the inaccurate conclusion you want to lead them to, and congratulations, you've lied and mislead someone, without ever directly telling a debunkable lie.
Wikileaks for some time had begun targeting primarily liberal institutions and engaging in doxxing of people who are particularly vulnerable. Right around the time of this shift, their social media began increasingly reference and use anti-semitic shibboleths.
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/
Early in the gomergate saga, they were regularly posting positively about it.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/20/7015849/wikileaks-finds-common-cause-with-gamergate
The abundance of evidence is that since at least 2014, wikileaks has had a pretty targeted agenda and found itself on the bad side of almost every issue...
I guess then a bit more salt would help you swallow something even more odious/suspicious.
It is commonly held that the principal action in the Robin Hood tales take place in the very late 12th century, around the time of the Third Crusade (given the appearance of King Richard as a crusader). At the time, Acre was a major trading hub and the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, so it was naturally the target of much anti-Islamic sentiment in continental Europe.
Pepper was a prized trade good throughout the Mediterranean, but became known as a premiere example of the excesses of the Caliphs as the Crusades wore on. It was a simple matter to foment anti-Islamic sentiment by banning those goods most associated with the culture - and as a great number of spices originated in India and had to be routed through the Middle East, it was a logical matter to ban their sale throughout continental Europe. No trade in spices means less funding to the countries they were trying to conquer in the Crusades. Richard put this into effect before actually departing on Crusade, and it remained in effect after his return.
This worked very well, and some scholars speculate that the decrease in sales actually contributed to the fall of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade. Richard's decision to ban the spice was heralded as a brilliant strategic move, and the English continue to celebrate his success to this day by making literally the blandest fucking food on the planet.
Source: my ass.