Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Politics. The feel in your country.

1626627629631632635

Comments

  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,009
    edited July 2018

    One just needs to apply Occam's Razor to what we saw today from Trump. What is the simplest reason Trump would flat-out side with Putin on the issue of the election attack??

    The simplest explanation is "political expediency". Politicians typically say what they think the crowd in attendance wants to hear and, for Trump at this conference, the only audience who matters is Putin. Trump still has the mindset of a 1980s-era Wall Street mogul--aggression masquerading as assertiveness, arranging everyone into a pecking order based on perceived personal power, and deferring to those who rank above you while treating those who rank beneath you with contempt.

    Russia doesn't need to have any dirt on Trump they can use for leverage. Trump is so desperate to schmooze up to Putin because he perceives Putin to be a powerful person that he will fall all over himself in at attempt to seem like he fits in. This is same frame of mind the younger Trump had when he was desperate to be accepted by the powerful business elite in Manhattan--the only things that have changed are that Trump is older and holds a political office now. His need for external validation is so powerful that it could be labeled a form of mania.

    semiticgoddessBalrog99ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited July 2018
    That sounds like you are reading too much into things and inventing a justification. Over stretching what we know to create a possible narrative. We know Trump's compromised by Russia and he keeps proving it again and again repeatedly.

    Eric and Don Jr. both said things years ago that they are getting all the money they need from Russia because Trump couldn't get loans in the US after multiple bankruptcies. Trump has ties to shady characters with Russian connections like Carter Page, Manaford, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, etc etc etc.

    The pee tape has had several pieces proven and was made by a proven intelligence asset. Who cares if Hillary Clinton, Bozo the Clown or the GOP funded it - it's being proven true. True the most salacious bit may not be proven, but the many auxiliary details have been proven accurate. Do you believe this or a liar who keeps changing his story?

    The Mueller investigation has found tons of links and there's additional stuff that hasn't resulted in charges - yet - that we know of. Stuff that might never appear in charges include the Trump tower meeting - all we have (as far as you and I know) are the words of some liars who keep changing their story on what happened. That may be all we ever get but clearly the point was to cheat in the election and Don Jr said he was so excited about it.

    You say "Putin would never extradite Russian intelligence". Well, at least goddamn ask instead of just allowing and enabling it to happen again. Who knows maybe there's something he wants really bad in return or at worst you stop making footsie friends with an enemy that is attacking the United States.

    Trump loves authoritarian dictators. That's true. Even if all the Russia stuff is not true then he's still a traitor. For acting like a dictator "the press is the enemy of the people", siding with Russia over the United States intelligence agencies, saying the EU is a 'foe', caging children, lying constantly, and on and on.

    EDIT:
    Also in no case has it ever come out later that it wasn't as bad as it looked initially either. In every case where new facts come out later they are showing that Trump was lying before.


    image

    Post edited by smeagolheart on
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,831


    Russia doesn't need to have any dirt on Trump they can use for leverage. Trump is so desperate to schmooze up to Putin because he perceives Putin to be a powerful person that he will fall all over himself in at attempt to seem like he fits in. This is same frame of mind the younger Trump had when he was desperate to be accepted by the powerful business elite in Manhattan--the only things that have changed are that Trump is older and holds a political office now. His need for external validation is so powerful that it could be labeled a form of mania.

    I probably wouldn't use such strong words for it, but this is exactly my understanding of Trump's mindset. Trump has been known for craving acclaim and validation long before he ever ran for president. He's been obsessed with the media for decades. He would hold large press conferences to announce business deals that he would later forget, talk up the reputations of people he was friends with, inflate the size of his assets, and constantly boast of his own wealth, strength, power, and influence. He's a glory-seeker. A very insecure old man looking for reassurance for his large but fragile ego.

    The problem is that he doesn't seem to care where it comes from or how he gets it. He will say and do anything that he thinks will make himself look better in the eyes of others.

    Look at how upset he gets when the press is critical of him. Look at how much he loves Fox for supporting him. Look at how much he loves his crowds, and how much he resents his protestors. He wants to be liked.

    That's his one overwhelming priority.

    MathsorcererThacoBell
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,009


    Trump loves authoritarian dictators. That's true. Even if all the Russia stuff is not true then he's still a traitor. For acting like a dictator

    this does not meet the definition of treason, from a Federal point of view.

    "the press is the enemy of the people"

    this is Trump's personal opinion, which also does not qualify as "treason"

    siding with Russia over the United States intelligence agencies

    throwing people or agencies under the bus still isn't "treason"

    saying the EU is a 'foe'

    again, this is Trump's personal opinion

    caging children

    a mischaracterization of ICE attempting to comply with a Federal court decision

    lying constantly

    this shows poor character on his part but still isn't treason

    and on and on.

    this doesn't mean anything at all. Again, "treason" does not mean "I don't like what that politician is doing". There is an actual definition and until someone has been convicted of treason calling them a traitor does not make them a traitor. I could claim that Obama trying to give Iran access to the United States banking system without telling Congress by helping Iran fudge the guidelines in the now-defunct JCPOA was treason--giving aid or comfort to an enemy--but that would be an unprovable opinion on my part, so why bother?

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,722
    The Russian/NRA money funnel I have been harping on for months starts to come into focus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/16/maria-butina-charged-spying-russia-us-doj

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,592



    caging children

    a mischaracterization of ICE attempting to comply with a Federal court decision


    Totally disagree here. It is and was a stated goal of the Administration to use the separation of children from their parents to de-incentive immigration (legal or otherwise) from the southern border. I believe Jeff Sessions said so himself. We cannot normalize this. Not ever.

    I also personally think you're too caught up in trying to make a legal argument. Everyone knows he's not going to be tried for "treason". That doesnt mean people cannot label him a traitor or as being treasonous (just as he constantly does to demonize his political opponents).


    For my own perspective, I cut somewhere between the two of you. I dont think every little sign of corruption or weird behavior proves collusion with Russia, but I'm also not going to ignore some of the more obvious signs that Russia intentionally meddled in the election to help Donald Trump, and that it appears to be linked to communication with his campaign in the process.

    Grond0MathsorcererThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,975


    Russia doesn't need to have any dirt on Trump they can use for leverage. Trump is so desperate to schmooze up to Putin because he perceives Putin to be a powerful person that he will fall all over himself in at attempt to seem like he fits in. This is same frame of mind the younger Trump had when he was desperate to be accepted by the powerful business elite in Manhattan--the only things that have changed are that Trump is older and holds a political office now. His need for external validation is so powerful that it could be labeled a form of mania.

    I probably wouldn't use such strong words for it, but this is exactly my understanding of Trump's mindset. Trump has been known for craving acclaim and validation long before he ever ran for president. He's been obsessed with the media for decades. He would hold large press conferences to announce business deals that he would later forget, talk up the reputations of people he was friends with, inflate the size of his assets, and constantly boast of his own wealth, strength, power, and influence. He's a glory-seeker. A very insecure old man looking for reassurance for his large but fragile ego.

    The problem is that he doesn't seem to care where it comes from or how he gets it. He will say and do anything that he thinks will make himself look better in the eyes of others.

    Look at how upset he gets when the press is critical of him. Look at how much he loves Fox for supporting him. Look at how much he loves his crowds, and how much he resents his protestors. He wants to be liked.

    That's his one overwhelming priority.
    He may crave adulation, but he knows full well that he's going to lose quite a bit of that from people in the US as a result of nakedly supporting Russia here. I find the argument he's willing to do that because he puts so much more stock in the opinion of Putin than his countrymen unconvincing. That's even before you take account of the impact of promoting an unpopular opinion on his future electoral chances and his ability to get legislation through Congress.

    Using Occam's Razor it seems to me that the simplest answer as to why he is willing to do that is in fact that he is being directed to do so.

    BallpointMansmeagolheartjjstraka34
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,722
    edited July 2018
    Grond0 said:


    Russia doesn't need to have any dirt on Trump they can use for leverage. Trump is so desperate to schmooze up to Putin because he perceives Putin to be a powerful person that he will fall all over himself in at attempt to seem like he fits in. This is same frame of mind the younger Trump had when he was desperate to be accepted by the powerful business elite in Manhattan--the only things that have changed are that Trump is older and holds a political office now. His need for external validation is so powerful that it could be labeled a form of mania.

    I probably wouldn't use such strong words for it, but this is exactly my understanding of Trump's mindset. Trump has been known for craving acclaim and validation long before he ever ran for president. He's been obsessed with the media for decades. He would hold large press conferences to announce business deals that he would later forget, talk up the reputations of people he was friends with, inflate the size of his assets, and constantly boast of his own wealth, strength, power, and influence. He's a glory-seeker. A very insecure old man looking for reassurance for his large but fragile ego.

    The problem is that he doesn't seem to care where it comes from or how he gets it. He will say and do anything that he thinks will make himself look better in the eyes of others.

    Look at how upset he gets when the press is critical of him. Look at how much he loves Fox for supporting him. Look at how much he loves his crowds, and how much he resents his protestors. He wants to be liked.

    That's his one overwhelming priority.
    He may crave adulation, but he knows full well that he's going to lose quite a bit of that from people in the US as a result of nakedly supporting Russia here. I find the argument he's willing to do that because he puts so much more stock in the opinion of Putin than his countrymen unconvincing. That's even before you take account of the impact of promoting an unpopular opinion on his future electoral chances and his ability to get legislation through Congress.

    Using Occam's Razor it seems to me that the simplest answer as to why he is willing to do that is in fact that he is being directed to do so.
    While we don't yet know all the gory details behind Trump's shady business dealings in Russia and what may or may not have gone down, Donald Trump DOES know, which is why he spends nearly every waking hour trying to discredit the investigation that threatens to uncover them.

    Above all, Trump took an oath to defend this country. In regards to attacks on the linchpin of our democratic republic, the elections, the vote, he has made it loud and clear he has no intention of doing so, because not doing so benefits him. There is an argument going around that this doesn't matter because the US does this too. One of my favorite liberal bloggers simply had this to say about that line of thinking:

    Look, the USA has interfered in elections in the past. It has helped to depose leaders. It has run guerilla wars. It has invaded countries. We had slaves. We killed all the native Americans. We have never lived up to our ideals. I get it. We suck. So do other countries, including Russia and the Europeans. History is full of nations, kingdoms, empires, doing terrible things to other nations, kingdoms, empires. Let's call it the history of humanity.

    That's bad. I'm against it. But that does not mean that we Americans must light ourselves on fire in an act of self-abnegation. Vladimir Putin is a right-wing authoritarian kleptocrat whose goal seems to be to use Donald Trump as a tool to destroy America. I'm sorry, I don't think that's a good idea. I'd rather he not do that. I live here.


    Trump's performance today was the foreign policy version of his statements after Charlottesville.

    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,009
    edited July 2018


    Totally disagree here. It is and was a stated goal of the Administration to use the separation of children from their parents to de-incentive immigration (legal or otherwise) from the southern border. I believe Jeff Sessions said so himself. We cannot normalize this. Not ever.

    I also personally think you're too caught up in trying to make a legal argument. Everyone knows he's not going to be tried for "treason". That doesnt mean people cannot label him a traitor or as being treasonous (just as he constantly does to demonize his political opponents).

    Fair enough on the first part. I wouldn't have given the green light to such a policy, myself, but then I am already on record as suggesting that we fast-track citizenship to those who are already here. Yes, that is a slap in the face to all those who immigrated here slowly yet legally but it is also less costly and less time-consuming than trying to find everyone, crunch them through the system, then either naturalize or deport them.

    On the second part...yes, I am. The words "treason" and "traitor" should be reserved for *actual* traitors, not just people with whom we disagree. If we start watering down those words then political discussions will eventually become this: person A: I believe x. person B: I believe not x. person A: well, you're just a traitor, then.

    The charges against Ms. Butina reflect negatively on her, not on those with whom she might have met. Of course, those people are now under increased scrutiny, but merely meeting with her was, itself, not a crime, especially if they were unaware of her dual role.
    Grond0 said:

    Using Occam's Razor it seems to me that the simplest answer as to why he is willing to do that is in fact that he is being directed to do so.

    I stand beside my earlier assessment of "political expediency"/playing to the crowd of one.

    BallpointMan
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963


    Trump's performance today was the foreign policy version of his statements after Charlottesville.

    Yeah at the press conference he said 'both sides' are responsible for the Russian hacking. Yet when he tweets he only blames one 'side' and it's not the Russian side.

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,794
    Ryan, Graham and Corker have all spoken against Trump words today. Republicans have not been silent regarding today’s press briefing.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,722
    edited July 2018
    deltago said:

    Ryan, Graham and Corker have all spoken against Trump words today. Republicans have not been silent regarding today’s press briefing.

    They will issue meaningless statements as they always do and then either cower in a corner (Corker) or go back to licking his boots by Saturday (Ryan, Graham). It's their party, they all enabled this, and until they take action, it is just words. Every once in awhile, they are forced to make statements to cover their ass. Charlottesville again comes to mind. This is another. And they will vote and support him 99% of the rest of the time. Because they are terrified of the Republican base voter that Trump has co-opted. Ryan and Corker are retiring. Graham is terrified of a primary challenge. I don't want to hear about how Republicans have spoken up. They have spoken up before. They do NOTHING. They know where their bread is buttered, and 30 years of Republican political strategy led to this inevitable and predictable end-game, which is someone like Donald Trump.

    And quite frankly, I also get really sick of Republicans getting massive amounts of credit for showing up 16 hours late to a party when liberals got to the same place 16 hours early. You'll never see members of a political party get more praise for being wrong right up until the last possible minute. Between this and the Iraq War, II'm positively sick to death of this narrative.

    BallpointMansmeagolheartThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,794


    The entire Republican party continues to support this overt attack on America.


    SILENCE from the right today. The party of national security. What a joke.

    My last post was response to this + some tweets saying the right have been silent.

    They have not been. It might not be as extreme as “he’s a traitor” but it was strong language coming from the same party.

    And what can they do to Trump? Start impeachment? Right before an election and right before his Supreme Court pick?

    Sorry, they are not going to make things more chaotic than they already are. They are going to attempt to ride out the chaos as best they can.

    And will they be in lock step with him a week from now? Sure. Remember it was only been a month he left the G7 summit. Look how much Chaos has happened since then with Trump. This little presser will be a footnote in the history of Trump’s presidency.

    Balrog99semiticgoddessGrond0
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    They also passed a unanimous resolution saying NATO is great - right before Trump went over and trashed it.

    Worthless words.
    deltago said:


    And what can they do to Trump? Start impeachment? Right before an election and right before his Supreme Court pick?

    Sorry, they are not going to make things more chaotic than they already are. They are going to attempt to ride out the chaos as best they can.

    So they don't do anything now, later they will have other excuses, always more excuses to do nothing ever.

    How did it get this far along? They've done nothing this whole time except enable and support this traitor.

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 385
    http://nymag.com/consent.html?redirect_uri=/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-u-s-russia-relations-will-improve-after-summit.html

    Trump Endorses Putin Proposal to Have Russian Operatives Work on Mueller Probe

    On Friday, the U.S. government indicted 12 Russian intelligence officials for committing cybercrimes that were aimed at disrupting — and discrediting — American democracy.

    Three days later, following his summit with Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump suggested that America’s intelligence agencies were wrong to believe that Russia intervened in the 2016 election; blamed American law enforcement agents for bringing U.S.–Russian relations to an all-time low; and endorsed a bizarre proposal from Putin, in which Special Counsel Robert Mueller would work with Russian officials to investigate cybercrimes against American political organizations.....


    oO

    smeagolheart
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,794

    They also passed a unanimous resolution saying NATO is great - right before Trump went over and trashed it.
    Worthless words.

    No, the resolution says that Trump words are not the views of America and they are his opinions only. That is what those words are saying to other international bodies.

    Trump can’t just pull out of NATO with a tweet. He needs those people who passed the resolution to do something. The resolution says he doesn’t have it.

    It may not be the extreme that the left is screaming but it is Hardly worthless.

  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 385
    edited July 2018
    Thanks to D. Trump the EU and Japan just signed a free-trade agreement.
    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/17/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement/791125002/
    https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274

    The free trade zone involved now covers 600 million people and is called JEFTA (Japan-Europe Free Trade Area).

    Post edited by Matthieu on
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,236
    Matthieu said:

    Thanks to D. Trump the EU and Japan just signed a free-trade agreement.
    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/17/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement/791125002/
    https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274

    The free trade zone involved now covers 600 million people and is called JEFTA (Japan-Europe Free Trade Area).

    It's the result of 4 years of negotiation and it's specifics were confirmed late last year (months before the Trump tariffs went up). The connection between this and Trump is kind of weak in my opinion.

    deltago
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,831
    There's a list of tweets by Republican politicians here about the summit. The article says that some of them sidestepped Trump's comments, but when I read the text of all of them, I see a consistent point of view: Russia is a foe of American democracy and Trump's statements about Russia and Putin were wrong. I'm a Democrat and have no pro-Republican bias, but I see very little to criticize in these statements. The only tweet supporting Trump's statements was Rand Paul.

    So I don't think that the GOP leadership is protecting Trump from negative fallout from his affection for Vladimir Putin. Quite the opposite: while the GOP isn't sounding a chorus for impeachment, they are not remaining silent and they are not defending Trump on this one.

    I consider this a reassuring sign that the GOP's support for Trump is conditional and depends on his words and actions, as it should be.

    I couldn't access @Matthieu's source for the claim that Trump suggested that Russian officials could work with the Mueller investigation, but another article from the Times said that Putin brought it up and Trump called it an "incredible idea." It's bizarre that the president would want Russian agents to have influence over an American investigation into Russian agents.

    Putin was also asked if he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election and if he tried to intervene on Trump's behalf. Putin said yes. The article suggests that Putin might not have heard the full translation of the question, and only thought he was being asked if he wanted Trump to win, and not if he interfered to help Trump win.

    deltagoGrond0
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited July 2018


    I couldn't access @Matthieu's source for the claim that Trump suggested that Russian officials could work with the Mueller investigation, but another article from the Times said that Putin brought it up and Trump called it an "incredible idea." It's bizarre that the president would want Russian agents to have influence over an American investigation into Russian agents.

    It's not bizarre it's consistent behavior from Trump.

    Remember this gem from Trump's last performance review..

    Trump wants the foxes guarding the hen houses.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,722
    edited July 2018
    Trump has now said he "misspoke" yesterday, and then basically doubled down on what he said yesterday within 20 seconds. How would a person flip their stance on this issue in 24 hours?? A dog and pony show that is nothing but the cover Congresional Republicans need to stick their worthless condemnations back in their pocket. By Friday, he will have publicly switched his position 3 or 4 more times. His interview with Sean Hannity 12 hours ago completely contradicts everything he said here.

    Meanwhile, the evidence has come in that Vote Leave flat-out broke the law in the Brexit campaign. What a shock:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/17/brexit-campaigners-broke-electoral-law-watchdog-group-says/?utm_term=.c5bbf11fcda5

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    Grond0
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited July 2018
    Trump, who watches cable news constantly (really! OMG you didn't already know that right) saw that his Surrender Summit with Putin was not playing out the way it played in his head.

    So he tries to have it both ways, he acted cucked in front of Putin but now that he's back home seeing how badly it is playing on the TV news shows he says the opposite of what he said in front of Putin. But not the complete opposite, he leaves it ambiguous so that he can flip back to Putin's side later once all the outrage has died down (due to the next scandal or outrage). What's his real position? Again and again he's said he believes Putin, he doesn't believe US intelligence agencies.

    Look it's clear now after over two years of public life that Putin has some kind of hold over Trump.

    Maybe it's the pee tape maybe it's something else like detailed knowledge of illegal business dealings. The only thing Trump cares about is his ego and his money so Putin obviously has power over one or more of those things.

    Post edited by smeagolheart on
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    The state funded the Trump - Putin meet-up costs in Finland.

  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,831
    The Trump administration is removing a rule that requires non-profit organizations to report the names of donors who contribute more than $5,000 in a single year. Primarily political organizations are not affected by this change, but as I've said before, I don't like the idea of secrecy behind major donations. If a philanthropist and a non-profit are working together, I don't see why either of them would be ashamed of it, or why either would want to hide it.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,722
    I've been thinking alot today about how the President of the United States simply does NOT care about the security or integrity of the one thing that let's all of us have a say in what goes on in this country, which is our vote and the election process. How can anyone believe this man is going to do anything to prevent a retread of 2016 going forward??

    smeagolheart
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,975

    Trump has now said he "misspoke" yesterday, and then basically doubled down on what he said yesterday within 20 seconds. How would a person flip their stance on this issue in 24 hours?? A dog and pony show that is nothing but the cover Congresional Republicans need to stick their worthless condemnations back in their pocket. By Friday, he will have publicly switched his position 3 or 4 more times. His interview with Sean Hannity 12 hours ago completely contradicts everything he said here.

    Meanwhile, the evidence has come in that Vote Leave flat-out broke the law in the Brexit campaign. What a shock:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/17/brexit-campaigners-broke-electoral-law-watchdog-group-says/?utm_term=.c5bbf11fcda5

    As far as I'm concerned Trump has had zero credibility for any of his statements for quite some time now. Lets see whether this latest example of how easily and how flagrantly he lies will have any wider effect on how others view him ...

    In relation to Vote Leave, the Electoral Commission have concluded they spent nearly 10% over their £7m limit for the referendum. The campaign has been fined and the founder and an official from Vote Leave referred to the police to investigate whether to bring criminal charges.

    One question now being asked is whether this extra spending had a decisive impact on the referendum. If campaigning had been more traditional that would seem very unlikely, but there's been some evidence in recent elections in several countries that the use of social media has been significantly more effective than traditional campaigning - not so much in swaying the way people vote, but in boosting turn-out from those inclined to your side already. An indication of the way the use of funding by Vote Leave differed from past expected behavior is that the majority of their campaign expenditure was made via the digital marketing firm Aggregate IQ (a company essentially unknown prior to the referendum). Nearly all of the illegal additional expenditure was on targeted social media advertising in the last few days of the election.

    I don't use social media, so can't comment directly on the impact of that sort of advertising, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the additional money did influence the result (the gap between Remain and Leave was a bit less than 4%). If similar overspending had occurred locally, for instance in electing an MP, a court might well order a rerun of the election. That can't happen in this case as the referendum result was purely advisory anyway. However, the fact of this overspending is likely to add slightly to calls for a further referendum - which up to this point have been essentially based on the lack of clarity about what a vote to Leave meant in the original referendum.

    If anyone's interested here is a background story on the links between Aggregate IQ & Cambridge Analytica - and Brexit & the Trump campaign and Russia. The story is over a year old now and since then there's been quite a lot of discussion about how social media can be used (and abused) to influence elections and other behavior. I suspect that will mean that this type of campaigning will be somewhat less successful in the future, so it will be interesting to see whether any future campaigns still use a strategy based predominately around social media expenditure.

    jjstraka34Mantis37smeagolheartThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,722
    edited July 2018
    Grond0 said:

    Trump has now said he "misspoke" yesterday, and then basically doubled down on what he said yesterday within 20 seconds. How would a person flip their stance on this issue in 24 hours?? A dog and pony show that is nothing but the cover Congresional Republicans need to stick their worthless condemnations back in their pocket. By Friday, he will have publicly switched his position 3 or 4 more times. His interview with Sean Hannity 12 hours ago completely contradicts everything he said here.

    Meanwhile, the evidence has come in that Vote Leave flat-out broke the law in the Brexit campaign. What a shock:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/17/brexit-campaigners-broke-electoral-law-watchdog-group-says/?utm_term=.c5bbf11fcda5

    As far as I'm concerned Trump has had zero credibility for any of his statements for quite some time now. Lets see whether this latest example of how easily and how flagrantly he lies will have any wider effect on how others view him ...

    In relation to Vote Leave, the Electoral Commission have concluded they spent nearly 10% over their £7m limit for the referendum. The campaign has been fined and the founder and an official from Vote Leave referred to the police to investigate whether to bring criminal charges.

    One question now being asked is whether this extra spending had a decisive impact on the referendum. If campaigning had been more traditional that would seem very unlikely, but there's been some evidence in recent elections in several countries that the use of social media has been significantly more effective than traditional campaigning - not so much in swaying the way people vote, but in boosting turn-out from those inclined to your side already. An indication of the way the use of funding by Vote Leave differed from past expected behavior is that the majority of their campaign expenditure was made via the digital marketing firm Aggregate IQ (a company essentially unknown prior to the referendum). Nearly all of the illegal additional expenditure was on targeted social media advertising in the last few days of the election.

    I don't use social media, so can't comment directly on the impact of that sort of advertising, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the additional money did influence the result (the gap between Remain and Leave was a bit less than 4%). If similar overspending had occurred locally, for instance in electing an MP, a court might well order a rerun of the election. That can't happen in this case as the referendum result was purely advisory anyway. However, the fact of this overspending is likely to add slightly to calls for a further referendum - which up to this point have been essentially based on the lack of clarity about what a vote to Leave meant in the original referendum.

    If anyone's interested here is a background story on the links between Aggregate IQ & Cambridge Analytica - and Brexit & the Trump campaign and Russia. The story is over a year old now and since then there's been quite a lot of discussion about how social media can be used (and abused) to influence elections and other behavior. I suspect that will mean that this type of campaigning will be somewhat less successful in the future, so it will be interesting to see whether any future campaigns still use a strategy based predominately around social media expenditure.
    It would seem to me that the two main victories of a sort-of globally ascendant right-wing populist (some would say outright nativist) movement, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, are both under a SERIOUS cloud of scrutiny as to just how legitimate their wins actually were.

    If I remember correctly Brexit was not a double-digit blow-out, percentage-wise (something like 3.5%). If we accept that money spent can influence votes, then the 10% illegal spending would have been WAY more than enough to influence the outcome. What possible faith in the outcomes of these contests can be had if one side is just flat-out CHEATING to attain victory?? You wouldn't recognize your friend as a legitimate winner of a game of Monopoly if he started with 10% more cash and property. You'd say the game was rigged from the start.

    smeagolheartGrond0ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963

    The Trump administration is removing a rule that requires non-profit organizations to report the names of donors who contribute more than $5,000 in a single year. Primarily political organizations are not affected by this change, but as I've said before, I don't like the idea of secrecy behind major donations. If a philanthropist and a non-profit are working together, I don't see why either of them would be ashamed of it, or why either would want to hide it.

    This comes 1 day after the Russian is charged with espionage and funnelling money to the NRA. Coincidence? No. No laws needed to be changed just a rule change by a Trump agency.

    Primarily this is to cover for right wing dark money to the NRA and Koch brothers political "non profits" but Conservatives shouldn't want this dark money either because you want to know if Soros is spending his money right.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/17/russia-nra-foreign-agent-728305

    There's video of the Russian asking "candidate Trump" a question during the campaign about russian sanctions and he cries about Obama then says something like he'd be willing to do something about the sanctions. I can post a link if anyone needs more video of Trump's schtick.

    Also saw a picture of her and Santorum.

This discussion has been closed.