If he were as lawless and obstructive as you suggest then why hasn't be been impeached yet?
Uh... because Republicans have enough votes in the Senate to prevent Trump's ouster? And (some) Democrats don't want to perform an empty gesture?
You seem to be arguing that the Republican party is unprincipled. In which case, I agree.
Incidentally, I agree with the DOJ policy that sitting presidents should not be indicted. However, that policy only really works if the president doesn't use it as cover for the commission of crimes. If the only consequence for the commision of crimes in office can be stymied by the political party of which the president is the leader - and especislly if the pardon power is used as a political weapon - we end up in a state of literal tyranny where the rule of law simply doesn't matter.
Of course there are still elections, but in order for voters to make an informed decision, they need the relevant information. So all of this militates in favor of a simple remedy: publication. If a subject of a grand jury investigation cannot be indicted, then a) it probably should not have been conducted as a grand jury investigation; but b) much of the rationale for grand jury secrecy, and the redaction of the report, goes away.
This is what I don't get about the Democrats. It's more or less a given that Trump has committed acts worthy of impeachment; holding impeachment hearings would brings those acts fully to light, and have the practical effect of unredacting the Mueller Report. Even in the face of an obstreporous Senate, that would be worth it IMHO.
The Trump administration is ignoring court orders. They and the evil Republican party are not interested in bringing things to light. The Republican party recently brought Candace Owens, a propagandist, as their 'expert' to racism hearings where she lied about the southern switch not existing and pretended Republicans aren't racist.
What this means is that of course Republicans will turn impeachment into a kangaroo circus. They don't care about the truth. They just want to muddy the waters or provide some lie that true believers can latch on to like "OMG the probe was biased because Peter Strok and his luver Lisa Page! And Hillary's emails are the real problem!"
During impeachment proceedings, the white House, the justice department, Congressional Republicans will cooperate WITH EACH OTHER.
These Republicans WILL LIE. Evidence has been destroyed already, if Barr's justice department is not lying about the transcripts of Flynn and Kislyack being gone.
If there's a court battle we can't be sure the courts will function either. 1/5 or something of all federal judges are Trump appointments due to the obstruction during the Obama years which left hundreds of openings which Mitch McConnell is now filling those vacancies as fast as his evil party can do so. He recently changed the rules to confirm them faster and has pushed through judges which home state Senators don't approve of which is also unprecedented. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court received the fewest votes and represent the fewest Americans EVER.
The courts inevitably WILL also fail. There's already been a couple kooky decisions to punish religious types facing decades in prison with a slap on the wrist for sex crimes and Manafort also got way less time than he should have. Reality Winner leaked one document and got more time in prison than Paul Manafort got for years of work as a traitor to the USA.
Why do people think the White House will cooperate and unredact the mueller report for impeachment hearings? Their goal will be to cry, whine, lie, distort facts, obstruct, waste time and present alternative facts. They will stoop as low as possible to prevent a fair investigation and regardless of what happens Trump and Fox News will claim total exoneration.
Even if a million crimes are exposed in the House, McConnell and the Republican majority in the Senate will refuse to convict Trump. Once that happens he will claim exoneration. And his army of NPCs will believe it.
And it's supposedly about his base, how can they be MORE fired up than they already are??
There isnt a "cap" on activation or enthusiasm until you've reached near 100% turnout. That hasnt (and wont ever) happen.
Simply said - the longer a president or party is in power, less his/her voters will turn out, and the more their opponents voters will turn out. See 2016 as a comparison against 2012 and 2008. Democratic voters went down from 2008 to 2012, and stayed about the same in 2016. This is despite demographic advantages in that younger people tend to skew Democrat and having 4 more years worth of people who were now of age to vote.
Similarly, we can expect to see Republican voters be generally less activated than they were in 2016. Anything that mitigates that factor, is bad, bad, bad for Democrats.
Frame your argument in any number of ways you would like, but it would be a fatal error to assume that Trump's base cannot be activated above and beyond where it is.
Even if a million crimes are exposed in the House, McConnell and the Republican majority in the Senate will refuse to convict Trump. Once that happens he will claim exoneration. And his army of NPCs will believe it.
Going to be vocal here: Let's not call anyone an NPC, shall we? Eliminating the agency of any person or group based on their beliefs is a major stepping stone to bigotry.
And it's supposedly about his base, how can they be MORE fired up than they already are??
There isnt a "cap" on activation or enthusiasm until you've reached near 100% turnout. That hasnt (and wont ever) happen.
Simply said - the longer a president or party is in power, less his/her voters will turn out, and the more their opponents voters will turn out. See 2016 as a comparison against 2012 and 2008. Democratic voters went down from 2008 to 2012, and stayed about the same in 2016. This is despite demographic advantages in that younger people tend to skew Democrat and having 4 more years worth of people who were now of age to vote.
Similarly, we can expect to see Republican voters be generally less activated than they were in 2016. Anything that mitigates that factor, is bad, bad, bad for Democrats.
Frame your argument in any number of ways you would like, but it would be a fatal error to assume that Trump's base cannot be activated above and beyond where it is.
Even if a million crimes are exposed in the House, McConnell and the Republican majority in the Senate will refuse to convict Trump. Once that happens he will claim exoneration. And his army of NPCs will believe it.
Going to be vocal here: Let's not call anyone an NPC, shall we? Eliminating the agency of any person or group based on their beliefs is a major stepping stone to bigotry.
I agree in principle, my bad.
You brought up beliefs. We as a species have a serious problem there. People don't take agency they just follow along when they know things are wrong.
What about when people's beliefs are dead wrong? Anti-vax, flat Earth, etc. Those are beliefs, the people that believe them do have agency but they're just dead wrong and won't listen. Christans believe that muslims are wrong. Not everyone is right. The people blindly following Trump are dead wrong and he's doing great damage. These folks need to wake up and see the damage he's doing. Unfortunately, these seem to be people who somehow think they're immune to the danger. They think they are on the "us" team and everyone else is on the "them" team. And it's ok if you hurt people on the "them" team. No, it's not people. You're next. You're already next. Your only useful today.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the unions, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The prime motivation seems to me to be the same as the argument for splitting up families. There are those in the government that would like to convince would-be migrants that no matter how bad conditions are in their home country, they would be worse off if they attempt to come to the US. While I accept that there is a genuine problem associated with migration, I agree that attempting to deal with that by bending the law to allow state terrorism is unconscionable.
If he were as lawless and obstructive as you suggest then why hasn't be been impeached yet? Incidentally, I am not excusing anything--we all knew Trump was smarmy and had both dirt on his hands and skeletons in his closet long before he became a candidate, much less POTUS.
I know that "the Dept. of Justice has a standing policy not to indict a sitting President" annoys many of you, but I implore you to stop and think about that policy for a second. Let us presume that Congress could appoint an investigator who could then charge the POTUS with a crime of some sort, resulting in a trial which would presumably occur in the House, much like an impeachment. Suppose also that Hillary had won in 2016 but the Republicans controlled the House--how long would it have taken them to indict her on something? 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? Go back in time now--how long would it have taken Republicans to indict Obama, or Democrats to indict Bush, and so on and so forth? If a sitting POTUS really could be indicted then we would spend a *lot* of time watching party A indict the POTUS from party B and the government would grind almost to a complete halt--do we really want that?
Yes. Maybe Congress would stop delegating their jobs to the Presidency. Maybe the President would stop rubberstamping everything that crosses their desk and actually MAYBE consider the merits of vetoing.
Also, let's not forget that some sitting Republican congresscritters said Hillary would have been impeached the day she took office. Political grandstanding you say? Maybe, but what kind of talk is that?
What the fuck kind of norms have to be broken for that to be acceptable? No different than "lock her up" chanted at every Trump rally.
Edit-Despite what has been drilled into people because it's simpler to say, the three branches of government are not equal. Congress is the superior branch, if it CHOOSES to be. It has the purse strings. It has the authority to strip away courts and federal agencies if it chooses, leaving nothing but the Office of the President and the Supreme Court if it wanted.
It would be more accurate to say that each branch has spheres of influence that are its domain than to say that they are "equal"; similar to games having different archetypes specialize in different things. The warriors tank, the mages and thieves hurt shit, and the clerics keep everyone alive.
Edit-Despite what has been drilled into people because it's simpler to say, the three branches of government are not equal. Congress is the superior branch, if it CHOOSES to be. It has the purse strings. It has the authority to strip away courts and federal agencies if it chooses, leaving nothing but the Office of the President and the Supreme Court if it wanted.
It would be more accurate to say that each branch has spheres of influence that are its domain than to say that they are "equal"; similar to games having different archetypes specialize in different things. The warriors tank, the mages and thieves hurt shit, and the clerics keep everyone alive.
They can all make a claim to be pre-eminent. The President can use emergency powers to do essentially anything he wants. Congress can pass laws allowing them to do anything they want and the Supreme Court can rule everything the others do unconstitutional and hold everyone in contempt. When it comes down to it though, they all need someone to actually enforce their will and I don't think it's obvious who would be best supported if there were a full-blown dispute between the branches of government - I do think it's obvious though that finding that out would not be a good idea ...
In this week of Legitimate And Objective Journalism, we're continuing the ongoing pattern of finding internet nobodies who made memes of Democrats and doxxing them.
The national media can continue to pretend they aren't nakedly activists first and journalists second, but the normal people who aren't cheer-leading their team see through that. This isn't even the first time they have doxxed a nobody for memes, and it certainly isn't the first time they've targeted another random vaguely pro Trump ordinary individual for targeted harassment, including kids. And no, i'm never going to shut up about how they treated them. They're trying to get Trump supporters hurt. There's no motive to doxxing- posting his picture, where he lives, etc.- beyond that in the real world and not here. At the very least, there is an ongoing reckless disregard for their safety, because politics determines your human value I guess. A not insignificant amount of journalism these days revolves around trying to get people banned on social media, and barring that, using the power of the press to intimidate them in some way. The guy even said he didn't want to be publicly linked to it because he feared having the politics he had in New York. Just disgusting on so many levels.
It's sad that i'm always retweeting the same handful of journalists, but there are so few that can be used as an example of how the media *should* act, if it cared about ethics or the truth or the integrity of their profession.
It just blows my mind that there are defenders of these worthless parasites in the year 2019. There is no way any serious person could defend their record.
But there are. There really are. My twitter feed is full of such people, thinking it right and justified that powerful institutions can target ordinary people for political reasons. I have nothing in common with such people, and I genuinely wonder whether this profound split between those that believe in the right of people to express themselves and those who gleefully cheer as the corporate boot comes down on the neck of all they dislike is reconcilable.
Sorry. That wasn’t a meme. That was an anonymous person passing the video off as legitimate and on his OWN news sites. This wasn’t he only posted it on Facebook and it took off. He made every attempt to make it take off. Having high profile republicans retweeting it as legitimate and having a good chunk of the population believe it.
It was news. The creator of the video should be able to explain in detail why they created it and own up to it instead of snickering in the corner like a coward.
Btw Daily Beast isn’t considered “national media.”
If the creator of the fake video isn't a public figure or at least a prominent personality in political discourse, then he really shouldn't be targeted even if he is proven to be spreading misinformation deliberately. Private citizens shouldn't be subject to mass recrimination even if they're clearly dishonest; the potential damage is too much for one person to take. As long as the creator is a small figure, the focus should be on the fake video rather than its creator.
I suppose mentioning the guy's name when reporting on the story is perfectly justified--people should know where misinformation is coming from so they know which sources can't be trusted--but the creator shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. The fake video would have to be more destructive than this in order to justify putting the creator in the spotlight.
We wouldn't have this problem if we had laws in place that criminalized organized harassment campaigns. If it was illegal for people to gang up on private citizens, then public exposure wouldn't be so dangerous for individuals, and you could expose this kind of lie and explain its origins without putting an individual at risk.
The fake video itself, though, is very much worthy of criticism. Manipulating a video in an attempt to deceive people, and intentionally doing it on a wide scale to mislead as many people as possible, is not justifiable.
If the creator of the fake video isn't a public figure or at least a prominent personality in political discourse, then he really shouldn't be targeted even if he is proven to be spreading misinformation deliberately. Private citizens shouldn't be subject to mass recrimination even if they're clearly dishonest; the potential damage is too much for one person to take. As long as the creator is a small figure, the focus should be on the fake video rather than its creator.
I suppose mentioning the guy's name when reporting on the story is perfectly justified--people should know where misinformation is coming from so they know which sources can't be trusted--but the creator shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. The fake video would have to be more destructive than this in order to justify putting the creator in the spotlight.
We wouldn't have this problem if we had laws in place that criminalized organized harassment campaigns. If it was illegal for people to gang up on private citizens, then public exposure wouldn't be so dangerous for individuals, and you could expose this kind of lie and explain its origins without putting an individual at risk.
The fake video itself, though, is very much worthy of criticism. Manipulating a video in an attempt to deceive people, and intentionally doing it on a wide scale to mislead as many people as possible, is not justifiable.
He OWNS two news websites. He made money off of the video by sharing it on those new sites. He is very much considered a journalist IMO and should be held accountable, just like any other news organization, for spreading this misinformation.
How much resources were expended by journalist outlets to prove that this video was fake?
Hw "powerless" is this individual if he can control the news cycle and influence countless people with his fake video?
This isn't innocent. The same type of tactic was used against Clinton and her health because she was ill during a campaign stop.
The only person who is ruining that individual's life is his own by presenting the video as legitimate and getting caught doing so and then not owning up to it. He should be held accountable for his actions and if not the media (who needs to fight this type of misinformation every day because everyone on the internet lives in their own personal bubble) then who. Should Pelosi be able to sue Facebook for making the video public? I guarantee the right would have a field day with that type of scenario.
If this person just posted the video to his own twitter/facebook/myspace/ICQ profile, then I am in agreeance. It would still be news worthy to reach out to that individual and ask them what they thought of their video going viral and I bet, a person like that would be more honest and forthcoming with their response. But I would also expose whoever twisted the video to present it as real because that individual or company is deliberately attempting to deceive the public.
Fake news seems to be a problem for people on the right. But it only a problem when it is perceived to come from news organizations that lean left and rarely are there blatant examples of this such as this video in question and even the Costa Chop. It's pathetic really and just shows how partisan these attacks on the media are.
I agree that this really doesn't sound like an example of an individual having a bit of fun by doctoring a video to show his friends. Rather this was something deliberately being manufactured and passed off as news - that's a real example of fake news and I don't see why the individual responsible should be protected from the consequences.
The fact that something is called fake news doesn't make it so of course. Even when Trump was recorded on tape describing Meghan Markle as 'nasty', he still didn't hesitate to say that reports of that were fake news ...
Leave the guy who edited the video out of it for a moment. This is the second time in as many years the White House has knowingly and willfully participated in spreading a video they knew full well was doctored and acting as if it was real. The first was the Jim Acosta "assault" video. This is the second. That is BY FAR the biggest issue here.
But as long as he's being held up as the paragon of virtue here, I wonder if Greenwald said a SINGLE goddamn word about run of the mill, low-level employees of the DNC and DCCC having personal information including their online passwords and banking info published by Wikileaks when the info was given to them by Russian hackers. Because either he doesn't care, or didn't read page 40 of the Mueller Report.
No. I've said before that we need a ban on "coordinated harassment campaigns," when a group of people get together to target an individual and send them hate mail, overwhelm their inboxes, or call them day and night in an attempt to intimidate them into silence. A lot of people (on both sides, though that shouldn't be required for this to be important) have suffered these kind of attacks, and currently these campaigns are legal. Inciting harassment of the Parkland shooting victims' families, for example, is not a valid expression of free speech--it's an attempt to intimidate and silence others.
If this guy has a wide audience and is part of the political discourse, then he is not a private citizen--he is a public figure actively trying to be a part of the discussion, and that sort of law would not protect him here. Not all of the information from the Daily Beast article is relevant to the issue (who cares what his non-news-related employment history is?), but it sounds like this isn't some innocent guy who stepped on the toes of the rich and powerful and is being punished too harshly for trying to deceive people. This sounds like a lightweight boxer voluntarily stepping into the ring.
No. I've said before that we need a ban on "coordinated harassment campaigns," when a group of people get together to target an individual and send them hate mail, overwhelm their inboxes, or call them day and night in an attempt to intimidate them into silence. A lot of people (on both sides, though that shouldn't be required for this to be important) have suffered these kind of attacks, and currently these campaigns are legal. Inciting harassment of the Parkland shooting victims' families, for example, is not a valid expression of free speech--it's an attempt to intimidate and silence others.
If this guy has a wide audience and is part of the political discourse, then he is not a private citizen--he is a public figure actively trying to be a part of the discussion, and that sort of law would not protect him here. Not all of the information from the Daily Beast article is relevant to the issue (who cares what his non-news-related employment history is?), but it sounds like this isn't some innocent guy who stepped on the toes of the rich and powerful and is being punished too harshly for trying to deceive people. This sounds like a lightweight boxer voluntarily stepping into the ring.
I'm just going say one more thing on this. Lying about nearly EVERYTHING is already destructive enough to to body politic. But when you are DELIBERATELY sharing a video you KNOW to be edited to completely obliterate the truth, it's not only what I said above, but shows TOTAL contempt for the people you are expecting will believe it. When Sarah Sanders magnified the Jim Acosta karate chop tape, and when Trump shared the Pelosi is drunk tape on Twitter, they knew they weren't real. And the only reason you would do so is that you yourself believe your political base is so stupid that they will swallow it whole without question. Not even the most conservative-loathing liberal in the country could possibly have as much contempt for Trump's base as Sanders and Trump demonstrated with their publicizing of these videos. As @subtledoctor said, this is straight-up propaganda being endorsed at the highest levels of government.
Today and tomorrow mark the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, when the Chinese Communist Party sent the People's Liberation Army into Tiananmen Square to gun down peaceful protestors and silence calls for democracy in China. To this day, the Chinese government refuses to acknowledge the event's existence except in oblique statements that the crackdown--the unprovoked murder of hundreds if not thousands of innocent students--was necessary. Every year around the time of the anniversary, the government harasses and intimidates human rights activists in an attempt to prevent anyone from commemorating the massacre.
The event was shocking at the time. The students at Tiananmen Square did not expect the government to respond with violence; the crackdown was a complete surprise to people on the ground. A lot of folks at the time hoped and believed that the Party would voluntarily democratize China.
There was actually a chance of that happening. Zhao Ziyang, a prominent member of the Party, actually sympathized with the protestors and supported their cause. If his view had won out, China today could have become a high-functioning democracy instead of the fascist police state it is today. Deng Xiaoping, also known as the father of the modern Chinese economy, viewed the issue very differently, and others in the Party feared that calls for democracy would break up China. The Soviet Union was still disintegrating at the time, and hard-liners in the party were afraid that China might share the same fate (Chinese nationalists have a psychological thing about the country being disunited).
Deng, ever the ruthless pragmatist and power politician, managed to seize control of the process and make the rest of the party toe his line, and the People's Liberation Army was sent in to shut down the protests through brute military force. China lost one of its best chances at becoming an advanced, modern country like its neighbors, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The Party has only grown more authoritarian since then, with ethnic minorities being actively rounded up in concentration camps and President Xi Jinping poised to remain dictator for life due to removing the term limit on his office.
It's a sad and bloody history, and the Party has successfully hidden the truth from the majority of the population through censorship and repression.
The fake video itself, though, is very much worthy of criticism. Manipulating a video in an attempt to deceive people, and intentionally doing it on a wide scale to mislead as many people as possible, is not justifiable.
Just wait until we really hit the prime time of deepfake. With a sufficient sample size of audio/visual clips and the right editing software, someone can make any public figure appear to say anything they want them to say. Truthfully, I am uncertain what our options will be at that point.
*************
If a judge orders you to do something which breaks a law, do you have to comply with that order?
You can literally find anything you want to on the internet now. My parents have proved that to me. Anything you want to believe just Google it and you can reinforce your opinion. It's impossible to change anybody's mind unless they're open to change or have doubts about their beliefs. Trump is the Second Coming of Christ? Google it with your brain shut off and believe what you read. Trump is the Anti-Christ? Ditto!
We are in perilous times and it's not just because of Trump and his supporters. I try to use subterfuge to make my family think logically about politics and religion with mixed results. They respect me but think I'm going to Hell. C'est la vie...
I also try to make my liberal co-workers think objectively with mixed results. They respect me but think I'm a racist, environmental fascist. C'est la vie...
At a certain point, even the most generous interpretation of what is going on here can only be that these people are doing this on purpose and I dare say ENJOY what they are engaging in:
Despite two notifications from HHS that the children would be arriving, ICE officers kept to their regular schedule, clocking out for the day while the parking lot filled with children eager to see their parents again. There was no one present to greet the arriving children and they were not equipped to process them in a parking lot, the BCFS official told NBC News, describing the scene as "hurried disarray."
Here's something to chew on. If I am on a phone call for the most mundane reason possible at the end of my shift, I stay til I have resolved the issue, no matter how insignificant it may be. If you "clock out" for the day knowing a bunch of helpless children will be stranded in a parking lot, you're not only not fit for your job, you may well just be a monster who shouldn't be working with other human beings period. You people are waiting for people to be rounded into camps before we raise the alarm?? The camps are already here. They just happen to involve people most Americans either a.) don't care about or b.) actively paint as parasites.
Sort of related but ya'll should watch HBO's Chernobyl. It definitely portrays what happens in societies where lies are commonplace and critical information is kept (for political reasons) from people doing vital work.
Plus its honestly just a good TV miniseries. Like terrible and heart wrenching, but good.
If a judge orders you to do something which breaks a law, do you have to comply with that order?
I mean, you can always refuse. But doing so might be a contemptuous act. Look at Judith Miller, who ended up being jailed for an extended period - what could have been an indefinite period - for refusing to comply with what she thought was an unlawful order to disclose her source.
It's a free country - you always have a choice. But sometimes none of your available choices are good ones...
You don't need to go back very far Chelsea Manning has been sent to jail a couple times now for not following a subpoena (hmm you mean like like AG Barr and others are doing?) and a judge is threatening her with $1000 dollar a day fine unless she testifies in secret grand jury proceedings against Assange.
Comments
Totally agree with you here.
The Trump administration is ignoring court orders. They and the evil Republican party are not interested in bringing things to light. The Republican party recently brought Candace Owens, a propagandist, as their 'expert' to racism hearings where she lied about the southern switch not existing and pretended Republicans aren't racist.
What this means is that of course Republicans will turn impeachment into a kangaroo circus. They don't care about the truth. They just want to muddy the waters or provide some lie that true believers can latch on to like "OMG the probe was biased because Peter Strok and his luver Lisa Page! And Hillary's emails are the real problem!"
During impeachment proceedings, the white House, the justice department, Congressional Republicans will cooperate WITH EACH OTHER.
These Republicans WILL LIE. Evidence has been destroyed already, if Barr's justice department is not lying about the transcripts of Flynn and Kislyack being gone.
If there's a court battle we can't be sure the courts will function either. 1/5 or something of all federal judges are Trump appointments due to the obstruction during the Obama years which left hundreds of openings which Mitch McConnell is now filling those vacancies as fast as his evil party can do so. He recently changed the rules to confirm them faster and has pushed through judges which home state Senators don't approve of which is also unprecedented. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court received the fewest votes and represent the fewest Americans EVER.
The courts inevitably WILL also fail. There's already been a couple kooky decisions to punish religious types facing decades in prison with a slap on the wrist for sex crimes and Manafort also got way less time than he should have. Reality Winner leaked one document and got more time in prison than Paul Manafort got for years of work as a traitor to the USA.
Why do people think the White House will cooperate and unredact the mueller report for impeachment hearings? Their goal will be to cry, whine, lie, distort facts, obstruct, waste time and present alternative facts. They will stoop as low as possible to prevent a fair investigation and regardless of what happens Trump and Fox News will claim total exoneration.
Even if a million crimes are exposed in the House, McConnell and the Republican majority in the Senate will refuse to convict Trump. Once that happens he will claim exoneration. And his army of NPCs will believe it.
There isnt a "cap" on activation or enthusiasm until you've reached near 100% turnout. That hasnt (and wont ever) happen.
Simply said - the longer a president or party is in power, less his/her voters will turn out, and the more their opponents voters will turn out. See 2016 as a comparison against 2012 and 2008. Democratic voters went down from 2008 to 2012, and stayed about the same in 2016. This is despite demographic advantages in that younger people tend to skew Democrat and having 4 more years worth of people who were now of age to vote.
Similarly, we can expect to see Republican voters be generally less activated than they were in 2016. Anything that mitigates that factor, is bad, bad, bad for Democrats.
Frame your argument in any number of ways you would like, but it would be a fatal error to assume that Trump's base cannot be activated above and beyond where it is.
Going to be vocal here: Let's not call anyone an NPC, shall we? Eliminating the agency of any person or group based on their beliefs is a major stepping stone to bigotry.
I agree in principle, my bad.
You brought up beliefs. We as a species have a serious problem there. People don't take agency they just follow along when they know things are wrong.
What about when people's beliefs are dead wrong? Anti-vax, flat Earth, etc. Those are beliefs, the people that believe them do have agency but they're just dead wrong and won't listen. Christans believe that muslims are wrong. Not everyone is right. The people blindly following Trump are dead wrong and he's doing great damage. These folks need to wake up and see the damage he's doing. Unfortunately, these seem to be people who somehow think they're immune to the danger. They think they are on the "us" team and everyone else is on the "them" team. And it's ok if you hurt people on the "them" team. No, it's not people. You're next. You're already next. Your only useful today.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the unions, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Yes. Maybe Congress would stop delegating their jobs to the Presidency. Maybe the President would stop rubberstamping everything that crosses their desk and actually MAYBE consider the merits of vetoing.
Also, let's not forget that some sitting Republican congresscritters said Hillary would have been impeached the day she took office. Political grandstanding you say? Maybe, but what kind of talk is that?
What the fuck kind of norms have to be broken for that to be acceptable? No different than "lock her up" chanted at every Trump rally.
Edit-Despite what has been drilled into people because it's simpler to say, the three branches of government are not equal. Congress is the superior branch, if it CHOOSES to be. It has the purse strings. It has the authority to strip away courts and federal agencies if it chooses, leaving nothing but the Office of the President and the Supreme Court if it wanted.
It would be more accurate to say that each branch has spheres of influence that are its domain than to say that they are "equal"; similar to games having different archetypes specialize in different things. The warriors tank, the mages and thieves hurt shit, and the clerics keep everyone alive.
They can all make a claim to be pre-eminent. The President can use emergency powers to do essentially anything he wants. Congress can pass laws allowing them to do anything they want and the Supreme Court can rule everything the others do unconstitutional and hold everyone in contempt. When it comes down to it though, they all need someone to actually enforce their will and I don't think it's obvious who would be best supported if there were a full-blown dispute between the branches of government - I do think it's obvious though that finding that out would not be a good idea ...
The national media can continue to pretend they aren't nakedly activists first and journalists second, but the normal people who aren't cheer-leading their team see through that. This isn't even the first time they have doxxed a nobody for memes, and it certainly isn't the first time they've targeted another random vaguely pro Trump ordinary individual for targeted harassment, including kids. And no, i'm never going to shut up about how they treated them. They're trying to get Trump supporters hurt. There's no motive to doxxing- posting his picture, where he lives, etc.- beyond that in the real world and not here. At the very least, there is an ongoing reckless disregard for their safety, because politics determines your human value I guess. A not insignificant amount of journalism these days revolves around trying to get people banned on social media, and barring that, using the power of the press to intimidate them in some way. The guy even said he didn't want to be publicly linked to it because he feared having the politics he had in New York. Just disgusting on so many levels.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-found-shawn-brooks-the-guy-behind-the-viral-drunk-pelosi-video
It's sad that i'm always retweeting the same handful of journalists, but there are so few that can be used as an example of how the media *should* act, if it cared about ethics or the truth or the integrity of their profession.
It just blows my mind that there are defenders of these worthless parasites in the year 2019. There is no way any serious person could defend their record.
But there are. There really are. My twitter feed is full of such people, thinking it right and justified that powerful institutions can target ordinary people for political reasons. I have nothing in common with such people, and I genuinely wonder whether this profound split between those that believe in the right of people to express themselves and those who gleefully cheer as the corporate boot comes down on the neck of all they dislike is reconcilable.
It was news. The creator of the video should be able to explain in detail why they created it and own up to it instead of snickering in the corner like a coward.
Btw Daily Beast isn’t considered “national media.”
I suppose mentioning the guy's name when reporting on the story is perfectly justified--people should know where misinformation is coming from so they know which sources can't be trusted--but the creator shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. The fake video would have to be more destructive than this in order to justify putting the creator in the spotlight.
We wouldn't have this problem if we had laws in place that criminalized organized harassment campaigns. If it was illegal for people to gang up on private citizens, then public exposure wouldn't be so dangerous for individuals, and you could expose this kind of lie and explain its origins without putting an individual at risk.
The fake video itself, though, is very much worthy of criticism. Manipulating a video in an attempt to deceive people, and intentionally doing it on a wide scale to mislead as many people as possible, is not justifiable.
He OWNS two news websites. He made money off of the video by sharing it on those new sites. He is very much considered a journalist IMO and should be held accountable, just like any other news organization, for spreading this misinformation.
How much resources were expended by journalist outlets to prove that this video was fake?
Hw "powerless" is this individual if he can control the news cycle and influence countless people with his fake video?
This isn't innocent. The same type of tactic was used against Clinton and her health because she was ill during a campaign stop.
The only person who is ruining that individual's life is his own by presenting the video as legitimate and getting caught doing so and then not owning up to it. He should be held accountable for his actions and if not the media (who needs to fight this type of misinformation every day because everyone on the internet lives in their own personal bubble) then who. Should Pelosi be able to sue Facebook for making the video public? I guarantee the right would have a field day with that type of scenario.
If this person just posted the video to his own twitter/facebook/myspace/ICQ profile, then I am in agreeance. It would still be news worthy to reach out to that individual and ask them what they thought of their video going viral and I bet, a person like that would be more honest and forthcoming with their response. But I would also expose whoever twisted the video to present it as real because that individual or company is deliberately attempting to deceive the public.
Fake news seems to be a problem for people on the right. But it only a problem when it is perceived to come from news organizations that lean left and rarely are there blatant examples of this such as this video in question and even the Costa Chop. It's pathetic really and just shows how partisan these attacks on the media are.
The fact that something is called fake news doesn't make it so of course. Even when Trump was recorded on tape describing Meghan Markle as 'nasty', he still didn't hesitate to say that reports of that were fake news ...
But as long as he's being held up as the paragon of virtue here, I wonder if Greenwald said a SINGLE goddamn word about run of the mill, low-level employees of the DNC and DCCC having personal information including their online passwords and banking info published by Wikileaks when the info was given to them by Russian hackers. Because either he doesn't care, or didn't read page 40 of the Mueller Report.
I'd say "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
If this guy has a wide audience and is part of the political discourse, then he is not a private citizen--he is a public figure actively trying to be a part of the discussion, and that sort of law would not protect him here. Not all of the information from the Daily Beast article is relevant to the issue (who cares what his non-news-related employment history is?), but it sounds like this isn't some innocent guy who stepped on the toes of the rich and powerful and is being punished too harshly for trying to deceive people. This sounds like a lightweight boxer voluntarily stepping into the ring.
Right to assembly.
What a goon.
The event was shocking at the time. The students at Tiananmen Square did not expect the government to respond with violence; the crackdown was a complete surprise to people on the ground. A lot of folks at the time hoped and believed that the Party would voluntarily democratize China.
There was actually a chance of that happening. Zhao Ziyang, a prominent member of the Party, actually sympathized with the protestors and supported their cause. If his view had won out, China today could have become a high-functioning democracy instead of the fascist police state it is today. Deng Xiaoping, also known as the father of the modern Chinese economy, viewed the issue very differently, and others in the Party feared that calls for democracy would break up China. The Soviet Union was still disintegrating at the time, and hard-liners in the party were afraid that China might share the same fate (Chinese nationalists have a psychological thing about the country being disunited).
Deng, ever the ruthless pragmatist and power politician, managed to seize control of the process and make the rest of the party toe his line, and the People's Liberation Army was sent in to shut down the protests through brute military force. China lost one of its best chances at becoming an advanced, modern country like its neighbors, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The Party has only grown more authoritarian since then, with ethnic minorities being actively rounded up in concentration camps and President Xi Jinping poised to remain dictator for life due to removing the term limit on his office.
It's a sad and bloody history, and the Party has successfully hidden the truth from the majority of the population through censorship and repression.
Just wait until we really hit the prime time of deepfake. With a sufficient sample size of audio/visual clips and the right editing software, someone can make any public figure appear to say anything they want them to say. Truthfully, I am uncertain what our options will be at that point.
*************
If a judge orders you to do something which breaks a law, do you have to comply with that order?
We are in perilous times and it's not just because of Trump and his supporters. I try to use subterfuge to make my family think logically about politics and religion with mixed results. They respect me but think I'm going to Hell. C'est la vie...
I also try to make my liberal co-workers think objectively with mixed results. They respect me but think I'm a racist, environmental fascist. C'est la vie...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/botched-family-reunifications-left-migrant-children-waiting-vans-overnight-n1013336
Here is a fun part:
Despite two notifications from HHS that the children would be arriving, ICE officers kept to their regular schedule, clocking out for the day while the parking lot filled with children eager to see their parents again. There was no one present to greet the arriving children and they were not equipped to process them in a parking lot, the BCFS official told NBC News, describing the scene as "hurried disarray."
Here's something to chew on. If I am on a phone call for the most mundane reason possible at the end of my shift, I stay til I have resolved the issue, no matter how insignificant it may be. If you "clock out" for the day knowing a bunch of helpless children will be stranded in a parking lot, you're not only not fit for your job, you may well just be a monster who shouldn't be working with other human beings period. You people are waiting for people to be rounded into camps before we raise the alarm?? The camps are already here. They just happen to involve people most Americans either a.) don't care about or b.) actively paint as parasites.
Plus its honestly just a good TV miniseries. Like terrible and heart wrenching, but good.
You don't need to go back very far Chelsea Manning has been sent to jail a couple times now for not following a subpoena (hmm you mean like like AG Barr and others are doing?) and a judge is threatening her with $1000 dollar a day fine unless she testifies in secret grand jury proceedings against Assange.