US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

This is how you do it!

Northwestern and Brown also negotiated an end to the encampments, without even actually threatening them.

 

[Federberg]

Northwestern and Brown also negotiated an end to the encampments, without even actually threatening them.

then they were too nice. The time for coddling is over. I highly doubt this is just students. Very high probability there are activists with nefarious intent amongst them

 

[shawnbm]

Northwestern and Brown also negotiated an end to the encampments, without even actually threatening them.

I find what the University of Florida did, my alma mater, to be the way to go about it. What Northwestern, Brown and others did only feeds the and does not deter the insanity. Dartmouth didn't do what Northwestern or Brown did, they followed with the University of Florida did or perhaps it was the other way around; I really don't know and don't care. I remember going to demonstrations in the early 1980s at the University of Florida where there were plenty of demonstrations over the Reagan Administration, nuclear war, the Cuba situation, etc. and it was made clear to all of us that you can do what you need to do and assemble freely, but there was a time and place, the classes would go on, there would be no disruption and that was that. I certainly knew to go away from those things when the time was up and, frankly, I understood I was there to get an education. I do not recall and I do not know with certainty, but I seriously doubt there were outside agitator's or professionals being paid to go around assist in drumming up things and creating chaos and intentionally interrupting the University from its function. It may have existed, unbeknownst to me, but it certainly was not in the level that we are seeing across the country today.

 

[Moxie]

I find what the University of Florida did, my alma mater, to be the way to go about it. What Northwestern, Brown and others did only feeds the and does not deter the insanity. Dartmouth didn't do what Northwestern or Brown did, they followed with the University of Florida did or perhaps it was the other way around; I really don't know and don't care. I remember going to demonstrations in the early 1980s at the University of Florida where there were plenty of demonstrations over the Reagan Administration, nuclear war, the Cuba situation, etc. and it was made clear to all of us that you can do what you need to do and assemble freely, but there was a time and place, the classes would go on, there would be no disruption and that was that. I certainly knew to go away from those things when the time was up and, frankly, I understood I was there to get an education. I do not recall and I do not know with certainty, but I seriously doubt there were outside agitator's or professionals being paid to go around assist in drumming up things and creating chaos and intentionally interrupting the University from its function. It may have existed, unbeknownst to me, but it certainly was not in the level that we are seeing across the country today.

I definitely agree that disrupting people's (expensive!) educations is no way to win folks over to your cause. University presidents have to decide what to do when things go too far, though I don't mind if they negotiate a peaceful conclusion without the need for cops, arrests and expulsions. No solution is one-size-fits-all in something this widespread. I have limited sympathy for the passions of these students, as I find their single-mindedness on this complex issue to be totally lacking in nuance, or intellectual rigor...the very things they are in college to learn.

I've also been to rallies and demonstrations since something a bit predating your era of them, and I don't remember "outside agitators" either. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Or, at least the claiming that they exist is. One protest I went to that had a very noticeable Antifa presence was the inauguration of Bush in DC, in 2001. This was in the early days of Antifa, and they were noticeable for their black bandannas. But I wouldn't call them outside agitators. They were simply a more organized group within a large protest. We all were there protesting the same thing,..that the Supreme Court had halted the vote count in FL and declared Bush the winner. And I never saw them stirring up trouble. It was the cops that escalated the tension, by corralling us, and swapping out uniformed cops for cops in riot gear, right in front of us. That, and the helicopters overhead. I get that there was a newly elected President there. But I looked back at the reporting of the time, and there were few skirmishes, and few arrests.

I'd like to know who @Federberg thinks these "outside agitators" are, and what their nefarious intentions might be. Or even their non-nefarious aims.

 

[Federberg]

in case we all missed it, the world has changed. I don't think the protests of a bygone era are comparable for the simple reason that social media exists, what was once local is not necessarily so anymore. Not in the global Information Age. We are watching two conflicts in other parts of the world with a very obvious cyber/social media component being implemented. In both cases the outcomes of these conflicts can be affected by US foreign policy. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that the combatants are willing to sit passively and not attempt to affect the US policy actions that might determine their fates. Let me be clear... the lives and fates of the combatants will be affected by US policy. At the same time social media tools like TikTok are highly effective at promoting the positions of the combatants. Anyone who uses these tools can see the efforts in support of one side or the other. We also hear the very same talking points that the combatants make in support of their beliefs, promoted on social media, and spouted by the protesters. Might this be a passive transfer? Absolutely! Let's say it started passively, do you think it's stayed passive or more realistically have the combatants taken note and sought to turbo charge the transfer of their beliefs and values across social media? This isn't conspiracy theory here, all we have to do is open our eyes and see what's happening right in front of us.

 

[shawnbm]

^ good points there Federberg

 

[Moxie]

in case we all missed it, the world has changed. I don't think the protests of a bygone era are comparable for the simple reason that social media exists, what was once local is not necessarily so anymore. Not in the global Information Age. We are watching two conflicts in other parts of the world with a very obvious cyber/social media component being implemented. In both cases the outcomes of these conflicts can be affected by US foreign policy. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that the combatants are willing to sit passively and not attempt to affect the US policy actions that might determine their fates. Let me be clear... the lives and fates of the combatants will be affected by US policy. At the same time social media tools like TikTok are highly effective at promoting the positions of the combatants. Anyone who uses these tools can see the efforts in support of one side or the other. We also hear the very same talking points that the combatants make in support of their beliefs, promoted on social media, and spouted by the protesters. Might this be a passive transfer? Absolutely! Let's say it started passively, do you think it's stayed passive or more realistically have the combatants taken note and sought to turbo charge the transfer of their beliefs and values across social media? This isn't conspiracy theory here, all we have to do is open our eyes and see what's happening right in front of us.

I can't speak for Shawn, but I think we were just talking about the old days. I have no doubt that the world has changed. You bring up interesting points about how messages can be spread across social media, and the interest that parties have in them. But my question to you was sincere. The term "outside agitators" gets thrown around a lot. So, you're saying that you think that they're directly related to Hamas and to Israel? Like Mossad people? And whatever secret service Hamas has to put moles into these protests? Or, do you think they are US-based but otherwise interested entities that stir up trouble, and put it on social media? This is a serious question.

 

[Federberg]

I can't speak for Shawn, but I think we were just talking about the old days. I have no doubt that the world has changed. You bring up interesting points about how messages can be spread across social media, and the interest that parties have in them. But my question to you was sincere. The term "outside agitators" gets thrown around a lot. So, you're saying that you think that they're directly related to Hamas and to Israel? Like Mossad people? And whatever secret service Hamas has to put moles into these protests? Or, do you think they are US-based but otherwise interested entities that stir up trouble, and put it on social media? This is a serious question.

social media IS an outside agitator... But I'll take the bait... I think there are a number of nation states with the wherewithal to infiltrate some of these groups... China, Russia, Iran... I suspect that latter two are more likely, as they are probably more willing to invest in the micro. I see China's intelligence operations more focused on the macro... i.e. Tiktok, fentanyl etc...

 

[shawnbm]

It all of that. A lot of moving parts here and going forward. It is all about worldview. Formerly, it was democracy (almost always tied to some form of capitalism) versus Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Now, it increasingly imbued with victim politics and a view of either one is an oppressor--or beneficiary thereof--or a victim or inheritor of a certain deck of cards, regardless of what economic system you find yourself in. History and current affairs are now viewed through that prism more and more it seems--but the latter are far more often to be old world in economic theory; i.e., prone to socialism/communism and a general acceptance of anarchy to serve their purposes. Obviously, this is off the cuff and could be off-base, but that is what I have seen over the last decade.

 

[Federberg]

It all of that. A lot of moving parts here and going forward. It is all about worldview. Formerly, it was democracy (almost always tied to some form of capitalism) versus Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Now, it increasingly imbued with victim politics and a view of either one is an oppressor--or beneficiary thereof--or a victim or inheritor of a certain deck of cards, regardless of what economic system you find yourself in. History and current affairs are now viewed through that prism more and more it seems--but the latter are far more often to be old world in economic theory; i.e., prone to socialism/communism and a general acceptance of anarchy to serve their purposes. Obviously, this is off the cuff and could be off-base, but that is what I have seen over the last decade.

the worm will turn and common sense will prevail again. This cultural marxist ideology is self destructive

 

[Federberg]

I really hope this isn’t true but if it is it’s an example of the tyranny of the state I was talking about a while ago…

 

[shawnbm]

^^^ please, that can't be true. I sure hope it is not true!

 

[Federberg]

^^^ please, that can't be true. I sure hope it is not true!

I hope so too mate, but this is the same government that blocked the bank accounts of truckers who were protesting during covid. Is it that much of a leap?

 

[Moxie]

Well, you guys could wonder about it, and hope it's not as bad as they way Elon Musk portrays it, or you could look it. I saved you the trouble.

Government says only extreme online hate speech would be probed by human rights body

Government officials say online hate speech would have to portray a group as 'inherently violent' or 'unhuman' to meet the threshold for investigation by a human-rights tribunal under a newly proposed law.

www.ctvnews.ca

There's also a NYTimes article which focuses on the child protection aspects, which is significantly different from the focus of the Canadian TV take on it.

It does seem to go a bit far. Imprisonment for life for promoting genocide? But the bill has to work its way through the process before it becomes law, meaning that it will likely be modified. Regulating the internet is something that a lot of countries are grappling with. With good reason. And some countries have laws against hate speech.

 

[Moxie]

social media IS an outside agitator...

Excellent point. Foreign entities have been using it as a propaganda tool for ages now, in various milieu. But I was asking about the ones on the ground that people claim are there.

But I'll take the bait... I think there are a number of nation states with the wherewithal to infiltrate some of these groups... China, Russia, Iran... I suspect that latter two are more likely, as they are probably more willing to invest in the micro. I see China's intelligence operations more focused on the macro... i.e. Tiktok, fentanyl etc...

It's not a bait. Seriously. I was curious to know what you think this could mean in our changing world. Very interesting points about what China v. Russia and Iran might be willing to do, or how they would approach it. I can easily believe that there are Russian and Iranian assets working in the US, for years now. And Israeli ones. I'm having a hard time imagining that they made it to all of the various campus protests, but if you combine it with a social media propaganda barrage, I could see how that could work. It does make those college students look like tools. Unfortunately, that doesn't surprise me, either. As I've said, I find the students' take on this rather lacking in nuance and understanding.

 

[britbox]

he is a politician. He's just not the type of politician you recognise. And he is certainly not about governing. But please never make the mistake of thinking it's not politics. His kind has existed since the beginning of time. It's only that those types are generally not wanted by the electorate. They require a fertile situation to gain power. A time of dissatisfaction, a time when things are broken


no we won't, but we both know a hell of a lot of folks who will. It's roughly 60-40 against Trump in terms of view point. Even then I hold myself apart. It's no secret that there are many things Trump says that I'm not opposed to. But for me it's important that democratic institutions survive


that can't be helped and one of the sources of the disconnect. Sadly the world is less different than you might think. Whether it's social media, communication, whatever it is.... we're all less different than we think we are in this era. Didn't we all learn this lesson after Trump followed the Brexit vote? I personally believe that the fact that the US is not putting boots on the ground matters. Heck the distribution of arms to the Ukraine is enabling the US military to get rid of old generation weaponry for good purpose while funding the production of more up to date weaponry. Add to that the economic benefits for the States that are involved in arms production. But sadly you talk to anyone opposed to these wars on either side of the pond and they are convinced that it's a proxy war and even if our own soldiers aren't involved we're still fighting the war. They believe it's one rule for the West (imperialists, colonialists) and another rule for others. Facts mean less than perceptions in politics, so excuse me for disagreeing with you


they don't want dictatorship. They want someone to cut through the bullshit and protect their values. I completely disagree with them for the simple reason that the next dictator might require us to all cut off our dicks and become women @britbox is not wrong about social credit systems, surveillance, the threat of digital currencies. It's happening. These are all threats to our freedoms. We want laws that protect our property and our freedoms, not laws that permit the government to tell us what is good and what is bad. That enables the state to punish us. We see you Canada. As I've repeatedly said there are threats to freedom from both sides. The right is learning the lesson about curtailing women's bodily autonomy. In the UK, perhaps the left is being forced to retreat on transgender issues with the Cass report, but it's still not going to stop the Conservative government getting smashed in the next election. I'm no more a fan of book burning than I am a fan of children's books telling kids how to have gay sex, or heterosexual sex for that matter! I think I'm part of the silent majority on that. But common sense tells me that as long as there are sexualised books that try to disintermediate parental responsibility people will try to burn books. I hope your outrage about book burning is also complemented by outrage for books that are being changed to fit our times. I'm as outraged at people trying to teach bad history to white kids as I'm outraged by teachers trying to tell those same white kids that they're bad because they benefited from slavery. It's complex and could easily be resolved by common sense. I hope we still all have that. I'm not going to side with one side and accept the bad things they want to do. I don't understand that type of politics. If one side is right on an issue they'll have my support. If the other side is right on an issue, they will have my support. I just wish others weren't so tribal and are unwilling to see the stupidity on their side. That to me is just as dangerous

Well, I'm glad that mass surveillance, digital currencies and social credit systems are no longer considered a conspiracy theory. It's only taken a few years, but we got there in the end. For those watching legislation being passed in Western countries would be foolish to think otherwise at this point. The interesting part will be the sale of it.... "to keep people safe". Anybody seeking safety over liberty deserves neither.

 

[britbox]

Assange is one-way drop of information. Then again, the Pentagon Papers were likely of that ilk, although candidly it has been so long I can't recall all of that from forty years ago when I read about all of that from over fifty years ago!.

Nobody ever disputed the veracity of Wikileaks content though.. just the release mechanism and potential implications. I loved the raw data it provided. Always making the distinction between data and information. Information being somebody else's processed version of the data.... I'd rather process it myself. The whole Assange debacle is a disgrace to Western civilization.

 

[Federberg]

Well, I'm glad that mass surveillance, digital currencies and social credit systems are no longer considered a conspiracy theory. It's only taken a few years, but we got there in the end. For those watching legislation being passed in Western countries would be foolish to think otherwise at this point. The interesting part will be the sale of it.... "to keep people safe". Anybody seeking safety over liberty deserves neither.

I've always agreed with you about the encroachment of our personal freedoms. I'm just more sceptical about some organised directed intent. Life can be a lot simpler than that. The State ALWAYS tries to gather and hold on to power. The battle between the left and the right, or progressives vs conservatives can be distilled down to progressives having a desire to use the State to empower as many people as possible, and conservatives wanting to maintain the freedoms of as many people as possible. It's always been a fascinating contest between two sides who always fail to see or understand priorities of the other side. If they actually did take the time, they might have more sympathy for the other side.

 

[Federberg]

Am I the only one who's seriously disturbed about the evolution of Stormy Daniels' description of her encounter with Trump? Back when Bill Maher interviewed her it was consensual, if not particularly enjoyable. Now she's using the weaponry and language of MeToo to imply that it was coerced. I am sick to death of this unwillingness to take personal accountability shite in this era. She might not have harmed the case against Trump too badly, but I hate the fact she's somehow succeeded in making him a more sympathetic figure

 

[Moxie]

Am I the only one who's seriously disturbed about the evolution of Stormy Daniels' description of her encounter with Trump? Back when Bill Maher interviewed her it was consensual, if not particularly enjoyable. Now she's using the weaponry and language of MeToo to imply that it was coerced. I am sick to death of this unwillingness to take personal accountability shite in this era. She might not have harmed the case against Trump too badly, but I hate the fact she's somehow succeeded in making him a more sympathetic figure

"Seriously disturbed" seems a bit much. I'd like to see the original Bill Maher interview with her, but can't find it, so if you can, please provide. All I can find is Maher's bilious comparison, and I don't always find him the most reliable narrator.

I know that Me-Too victimhood bothers you, but I think you exaggerate it here, in terms of importance. I honestly don't see how you think that makes Trump in any way a sympathetic figure. Other than to men who think women are out to get them?

I find it perfectly plausible that she went to meet him, hoping he could do something for her career. She's always said that. Just because the sex was consensual, doesn't mean that it wasn't transactional, in her mind, and yes, there was a power imbalance. She's a porn star, and she wanted some sway with him, in an entree to more mainstream TV, and turns out the price of his attention was sex. Just because she obliged doesn't make him less of a creep.

There was a lot of how she addressed the cross that was pretty brave and stuck it to the "Orange Turd." She certainly didn't project victimhood, IMO. When they asked about her hawking products, she said, "Like Trump." Snap!

You might also consider that she was coached by the prosecution. She was clear in the details. It's hard to believe they didn't have sex, as Trump claims. Which is not crucial, but it does influence the jury in the notion that he paid hush-money for a reason. Obviously, the actual point is what the intent was, in paying the hush money: if it was meant to influence the election. The more they believe that Trump had sex with her, the more likely they are to believe that he'd have a political motive to cover it up.