US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Mandark]

As an independent now I get the benefit to view both sides outside looking in.

Nope.


edit: obviously a dickish comment, but I'm too tired right now

edit2tldr: you are dealing with just as much confirmation bias as anyone you're criticizing now (and as much as you were before this latest shift in perspective). you don't have a view into both worlds so much as a new framework in which you're going to interpret them.

[Himu]

I don't think it was dick-ish at all, though I do think it was curt. I think you underestimate the need the fall in line because it's a party's MO and goal at the time. But at the same time, I don't fault you for feeling that way. You do you.

[etiolate]

wasn't dickish, just lazy

Everyone has a confirmation bias, but you can work against it. The idea that confirmation bias is absolutely unavoidable is just a coward's way out of standing by anything. Being able to correct oneself from being wrong is the essential tool.

[Mandark]

I don't think it was dick-ish at all, though I do think it was curt. I think you underestimate the need the fall in line because it's a party's MO and goal at the time. But at the same time, I don't fault you for feeling that way. You do you.

Nah, I'm pretty keenly aware of the power of group identity formation.

My point is that you're seeing yourself as removed from those pressures now that you identify as an independent, when you're clearly taking cues from a particular faction which identifies as left but not democratic. Telling people to "soak in" that piece by Emmett Rensin, for example.

[Nola]

Current political polarization is a hard one to figure out how to fix? Mostly because things have gotten really bad and I think the influences are complex.

Objectively speaking, there is no realistic middle ground to work toward between a partisan that denies scientific facts like Climate Change. So how does that work?

How do you have a healthy and constructive discussion if one person has completely inaccurate facts but is vehement in their accuracy? Though, maybe answering that question would help answer the first one?

[etiolate]

soak in

did you just drop a golden showers joke in that response

[Nola]

wasn't dickish, just lazy

Everyone has a confirmation bias, but you can work against it. The idea that confirmation bias is absolutely unavoidable is just a coward's way out of standing by anything. Being able to correct oneself from being wrong is the essential tool.

Hope you learn how to use that tool one day     

[etiolate]

I keep being right though. 

[Himu]

Current political polarization is a hard one to figure out how to fix? Mostly because things have gotten really bad and I think the influences are complex.

Objectively speaking, there is no realistic middle ground to work toward between a partisan that denies scientific facts like Climate Change. So how does that work?

How do you have a healthy and constructive discussion if one person has completely inaccurate facts but is vehement in their accuracy? Though, maybe answering that question would help answer the first one?

Maybe the way we discuss these issues is just wrong? We treat science as if it's a religious entity and badmouth anyone who doesn't fall in line with that science. Even though we know full well that the same science at one point said that African's aren't human beings. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison of course, because there's plenty of science and observations in the existence of climate change compared to African's not being human. The same science that up until twenty years ago said that gay people were mentally ill. The point is, using an argument like "why don't they just trust in science?" isn't much of an argument at all, much less of a discussion. Then we go on to say that the other side is obviously stupid. I don't think shoving science in people's faces, as if it's infallible, is the best choice. But what do I know? Anyways, I wasn't really talking about climate change there but you do bring up a good example.

I don't think it was dick-ish at all, though I do think it was curt. I think you underestimate the need the fall in line because it's a party's MO and goal at the time. But at the same time, I don't fault you for feeling that way. You do you.

Nah, I'm pretty keenly aware of the power of group identity formation.

My point is that you're seeing yourself as removed from those pressures now that you identify as an independent, when you're clearly taking cues from a particular faction which identifies as left but not democratic. Telling people to "soak in" that piece by Emmett Rensin, for example.

It's actually really hard for me to not want to believe the Russian stuff/Pee Leaks thing. My instinct and bias says that anything anti-Trump is pretty on the mark because fuck that guy. I want to join in on the fun. But my better judgement right now is telling me to wait. After that WaPo article on Russian's hacking the electrical grid it truly makes the case that liberal news sources are just as desperate as the conservative ones some of the time even at "reputable" outlets. I'm fighting my confirmation bias pretty hard here, Mandark.

But you're right in that I take "cues" from the left. I have for years. I'm certainly not absolving myself from bias or pretending to be a purveyor of infinite knowledge. I'm just articulating one of the benefits of being independent is not being strapped to dogma and party lineage, which I think are pretty obvious pluses. Granted, I do identify as left. But the left is not currently viable in American politics and all that ultimately matters right now are the big two.

[Mandark]

The way you talk about "neoliberalism" is just as much dogma as anything, just for a smaller faction.

[Himu]

Maybe. I'm still willing to work with liberals, though. So it's not really dogma.

[Mandark]

Yes, it is.

[Himu]

I disagree but can understand why you think of it as dogma.

[Nola]

Current political polarization is a hard one to figure out how to fix? Mostly because things have gotten really bad and I think the influences are complex.

Objectively speaking, there is no realistic middle ground to work toward between a partisan that denies scientific facts like Climate Change. So how does that work?

How do you have a healthy and constructive discussion if one person has completely inaccurate facts but is vehement in their accuracy? Though, maybe answering that question would help answer the first one?

Maybe the way we discuss these issues is just wrong? We treat science as if it's a religious entity and badmouth anyone who doesn't fall in line with that science. Even though we know full well that the same science at one point said that African's aren't human beings. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison of course, because there's plenty of science and observations in the existence of climate change compared to African's not being human. The same science that up until twenty years ago said that gay people were mentally ill. The point is, using an argument like "why don't they just trust in science?" isn't much of an argument at all, much less of a discussion. Then we go on to say that the other side is obviously stupid. I don't think shoving science in people's faces, as if it's infallible, is the best choice. But what do I know? Anyways, I wasn't really talking about climate change there but you do bring up a good example.

I don't think it was dick-ish at all, though I do think it was curt. I think you underestimate the need the fall in line because it's a party's MO and goal at the time. But at the same time, I don't fault you for feeling that way. You do you.

Nah, I'm pretty keenly aware of the power of group identity formation.

My point is that you're seeing yourself as removed from those pressures now that you identify as an independent, when you're clearly taking cues from a particular faction which identifies as left but not democratic. Telling people to "soak in" that piece by Emmett Rensin, for example.

It's actually really hard for me to not want to believe the Russian stuff/Pee Leaks thing. My instinct and bias says that anything anti-Trump is pretty on the mark because fuck that guy. I want to join in on the fun. But my better judgement right now is telling me to wait. After that WaPo article on Russian's hacking the electrical grid it truly makes the case that liberal news sources are just as desperate as the conservative ones some of the time even at "reputable" outlets. I'm fighting my confirmation bias pretty hard here, Mandark.

But you're right in that I take "cues" from the left. I have for years. I'm certainly not absolving myself from bias or pretending to be a purveyor of infinite knowledge. I'm just articulating one of the benefits of being independent is not being strapped to dogma and party lineage, which I think are pretty obvious pluses. Granted, I do identify as left. But the left is not currently viable in American politics and all that ultimately matters right now are the big two.

My point with Climate Change was just that it is objectively clear one side is wrong(this isn't some soft science assumption like psychology in the 80's) but in the face of that objective truth, how do you effectively deal with that situation? Or someone that is confident their un-truth is as factually sound as your objective truth? Because that is unfortunately a major issue right now. There is blind partisanship which is a problem, but there is just another, tougher issue of compounded ignorances that pile up and sow greater and greater divisions. Coupled with human condition flaws that exacerbate it and outside influences that foster it.

Both are tricky problems to claw back on but the latter IMO is particularly tricky.

Though to jump into Mandark's discussion, there is nothing wrong with labels IMO. What I would argue is more important is how you determined that label or position(or not)? What was that process and was it a credible, reasonably objective and structurally sound way of forming that position? I don't think switching to independent inherently provides any benefits unless the underlying critical thinking process has improved.
 

[Himu]

Current political polarization is a hard one to figure out how to fix? Mostly because things have gotten really bad and I think the influences are complex.

Objectively speaking, there is no realistic middle ground to work toward between a partisan that denies scientific facts like Climate Change. So how does that work?

How do you have a healthy and constructive discussion if one person has completely inaccurate facts but is vehement in their accuracy? Though, maybe answering that question would help answer the first one?

Maybe the way we discuss these issues is just wrong? We treat science as if it's a religious entity and badmouth anyone who doesn't fall in line with that science. Even though we know full well that the same science at one point said that African's aren't human beings. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison of course, because there's plenty of science and observations in the existence of climate change compared to African's not being human. The same science that up until twenty years ago said that gay people were mentally ill. The point is, using an argument like "why don't they just trust in science?" isn't much of an argument at all, much less of a discussion. Then we go on to say that the other side is obviously stupid. I don't think shoving science in people's faces, as if it's infallible, is the best choice. But what do I know? Anyways, I wasn't really talking about climate change there but you do bring up a good example.

I don't think it was dick-ish at all, though I do think it was curt. I think you underestimate the need the fall in line because it's a party's MO and goal at the time. But at the same time, I don't fault you for feeling that way. You do you.

Nah, I'm pretty keenly aware of the power of group identity formation.

My point is that you're seeing yourself as removed from those pressures now that you identify as an independent, when you're clearly taking cues from a particular faction which identifies as left but not democratic. Telling people to "soak in" that piece by Emmett Rensin, for example.

It's actually really hard for me to not want to believe the Russian stuff/Pee Leaks thing. My instinct and bias says that anything anti-Trump is pretty on the mark because fuck that guy. I want to join in on the fun. But my better judgement right now is telling me to wait. After that WaPo article on Russian's hacking the electrical grid it truly makes the case that liberal news sources are just as desperate as the conservative ones some of the time even at "reputable" outlets. I'm fighting my confirmation bias pretty hard here, Mandark.

But you're right in that I take "cues" from the left. I have for years. I'm certainly not absolving myself from bias or pretending to be a purveyor of infinite knowledge. I'm just articulating one of the benefits of being independent is not being strapped to dogma and party lineage, which I think are pretty obvious pluses. Granted, I do identify as left. But the left is not currently viable in American politics and all that ultimately matters right now are the big two.

My point with Climate Change was just that it is objectively clear one side is wrong(this isn't some soft science assumption like psychology in the 80's) but in the face of that objective truth, how do you effectively deal with that situation? Or someone that is confident their un-truth is as factually sound as your objective truth? Because that is unfortunately a major issue right now. There is blind partisanship which is a problem, but there is just another, tougher issue of compounded ignorances that pile up and sow greater and greater divisions. Coupled with human condition flaws that exacerbate it and outside influences that foster it.

Both are tricky problems to claw back on but the latter IMO is particularly tricky.

Though to jump into Mandark's discussion, there is nothing wrong with labels IMO. What I would argue is more important is how you determined that label or position(or not)? What was that process and was it a credible, reasonably objective and structurally sound way of forming that position? I don't think switching to independent inherently provides any benefits unless the underlying critical thinking process has improved.

I don't have a solution but what I do know is that our current methods do not work, and you are sounding off a current method of "what about science?" As we have seen, busting out "what about science?" as if you have all the facts is not going to win us any wars. Sure, the science is there. But the argument needs to be further expanded beyond hard science. Treating science like it's an infallible religious institution will only make people who aren't on board further skeptical of science. It also presumes that people have no feelings and should automatically be on the side of science as if they are unfeeling robots. It just isn't working. I won't pretend to have a solution but we saw how throwing facts at people and telling them to accept the truth in a condescending manner DOES NOT WORK. Maybe we need to change the conversation a bit. It's worth trying.

As for labels and being independent, I used to vote straight D ticket depending on the election. In fact, it's what I did in November. I will not be doing that any longer. So yes, it is definitely a change in how I vote, personally.

[Mandark]

"You guys are strapped to dogma, unlike me. Also, you should be less condescending."

[Nola]

I don't have a solution but what I do know is that our current methods do not work, and you are sounding off a current method of "what about science?" As we have seen, busting out "what about science?" as if you have all the facts is not going to win us any wars. Sure, the science is there. But the argument needs to be further expanded beyond hard science. Treating science like it's an infallible religious institution will only make people who aren't on board further skeptical of science. It just isn't working. I won't pretend to have a solution but we saw how throwing facts at people and telling them to accept the truth in a condescending manner DOES NOT WORK. Maybe we need to change the conversation a bit. It's worth trying.

Thats kinda my point. Shits difficult. Its good to identify the problem at hand(Obama's speech) it will be a much harder task tackling it.

As for labels and being independent, I used to vote straight D ticket depending on the election. In fact, it's what I did in November. I will not be doing that any longer. So yes, it is definitely a change in how I vote, personally.

Its late so I don't really want to get into this rabbit hole, but isn't "independent" and declaring before the fact that you will not vote straight ticket just indicating a shift in mental behavior, not necessarily an improvement?

[seagrams hotsauce]

Wait, so the solution is for people who understand climate change to be more polite to people who deny it? The science behind CC isn't treated as "an infallible religion," it's treated like facts, because that's what it is. That's kind of the whole fucking point

[Nola]

Wait, so the solution is for people who understand climate change to be more polite to people who deny it? The science behind CC isn't treated as "an infallible religion," it's treated like facts, because that's what it is. That's kind of the whole fucking point

I can't speak for anyone else, my point was/is that I don't know the solution of how to effectively communicate those facts in a way that will shift the large concentration of people with compounded ignorance on the topic.

It was an outcrop of the Obama speech and the stuff being tossed around in this thread about it.

[VomKriege]

Trump just shrugged shamelessly his merry way through the grab the pussy tape. Not sure I buy that he would be receptive to blackmail for something like golden showers. Unless he is dressed as a nazi or eating kids.

Edit : Actually I would find it more believable damaging financial intel would get to him. The matter of his wealth is the most sensitive with him.

I mean yeah it's plausible there's some dirt in foreign intelligence drawers but without evidence it's barely more subtantial than the birther claims.

Coordination with Russia is the biggest thing here, though the threshold is very high there as well : It's not like Reagan was impeached or held officially responsible for Iran-Contra.

Trump will be sworn in. I agree he's potentially more vulnerable to future impeachment but I'm sure he'll get at least a full year of fuck up reign...

[Trent Dole]

Lol Trumpiss. Nobody would be surprised if it were true, and it wouldn't change anything either way.

[Optimus]

Neoliberalism has to be the most abused phrase in American politics lol.

It is an accurate description of the current political state of the country and the world in general. No matter how much liberals cry about it, since it perfectly describes what they've degenerated into, we will continue to use it because it's extremely relevant.

What exactly do you think neoliberalism means?

It expands from corporatism and the status quo of privatization on every facet of society which the US certainly meets to humongous wealth inequality, the deterioration of labor rights, corruption, war and globalization. Obama meets every single one of them. From him not prosecuting a single banker even when they were laundering money for terrorists and drug dealers, to ACA, TPP and his wars in Libya/Syria. Of course since liberals have become as gullible as conservatives I'm sure you have an explanation for every single one of those. He continued on the same path of capitalism for the poor socialism for the rich by bailing out the bankers and the auto industry while screwing everyone else including people with mortgages and auto workers, he continued on the same path of unending war to satisfy the military industrial complex.

Corporate profits rose from $671 billion at the end of 2008 to $1.636 trillion in 2016, and the wealth of the richest 400 Americans increased from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion, meanwhile the middle class is dying. The overwhelming majority of the "millions of jobs he created" liberals are boasting about are part time or temp.

But seriously, the most important fact is this: I don't need to explain the term neoliberlism to liberals every fucking time I use the word, it's the economic far-right, no further explanation is needed. You don't see me asking what liberal means every time you people identify as one. This is part of the obnoxious dismissive behavior people hate about modern liberals which is part of the reason Trump was elected.

So basically a reckless broadening of the actual philosophical term to the point it fails to acknowledge major context and differences between competing schools of thought? Which by doing so works great as a catch-all pejorative for your brand of    above-it-all/they-are-all-the-same politics?

It's not "reckless broadening", everything I mentioned is connected to the far-right economic ideology the Democrats are considering the default in the country and play by its rules. In fact many leftist intellectuals consider the Democrats even more dangerous than republicans because they're the ones bringing stability to neoliberalism while the other rightwing clowns usually bring economic chaos.

Major context and differences between competing schools of thought? Where? How? Because the puppets pretend to hate each other while protecting the same assholes and pushing the same fucked up policies that have destroyed the middle class?

[Himu]

"You guys are strapped to dogma, unlike me. Also, you should be less condescending."

I honestly don't blame anyone for supporting the Democratic Party. Looking at the alternative it seems like a smart choice. When I brought up dogma I was talking about the two party system and its influences on democratic supporters even during the words of the president they adore. I didn't say I am not influenced by dogma. This is simply an assumption on your part. You brought up one aspect of the left - the argument against neoliberalism - as an example of dogma. I rejected it as dogma. This doesn't mean there aren't other common arguments from the left that are dogma that influence me, such as an anti-capitalist argumentation. I bought, read, and agreed with the Communist Manifesto; that's dogma. You are trying to create zingers when I am attempting an earnest conversation. I have not denied I am culpable to biases at all in this discussion - on the contrary.

As for being condescension, if you haven't noticed I often use the word "we" when describing it. Basically, I'm throwing myself into the pile when I do it. I realize and am very aware of it but it's not going to die overnight and just because you see condescension in my posts doesn't mean that liberals at large aren't condescending.

Your entire post is formed on assumptions. About what I consider dogmatic - without actually asking what I consider political dogma - as well as my own interpretation of left condescension - which is by no means isolated to liberals.

[Himu]

Wait, so the solution is for people who understand climate change to be more polite to people who deny it? The science behind CC isn't treated as "an infallible religion," it's treated like facts, because that's what it is. That's kind of the whole fucking point

Of course it is. But we have established this past election that facts no longer matter. Thus, arguing facts is the wrong way to go as silly as it is. We've been arguing facts for the longest. Has it gotten us any closer to bipartisan climate change? Granted, a lot of this stuff is partisan politics rearing their ugly head like usual. But let's be honest, the facts don't matter anymore and by extension, neither does our argument. In an age where information in unlimited "facts" carry less clout because you could easily find an opposing viewpoint. So maybe the way the argument has been carried has been wrong? That's not to say the conclusion and data is wrong, but maybe telling people it's a fact and you're for not believing in science and you're dumb isn't the way to do it? Maybe our over reliance on "facts" doesn't amount to much?

I don't have a solution but what I do know is that our current methods do not work, and you are sounding off a current method of "what about science?" As we have seen, busting out "what about science?" as if you have all the facts is not going to win us any wars. Sure, the science is there. But the argument needs to be further expanded beyond hard science. Treating science like it's an infallible religious institution will only make people who aren't on board further skeptical of science. It just isn't working. I won't pretend to have a solution but we saw how throwing facts at people and telling them to accept the truth in a condescending manner DOES NOT WORK. Maybe we need to change the conversation a bit. It's worth trying.

Thats kinda my point. Shits difficult. Its good to identify the problem at hand(Obama's speech) it will be a much harder task tackling it.

As for labels and being independent, I used to vote straight D ticket depending on the election. In fact, it's what I did in November. I will not be doing that any longer. So yes, it is definitely a change in how I vote, personally.

Its late so I don't really want to get into this rabbit hole, but isn't "independent" and declaring before the fact that you will not vote straight ticket just indicating a shift in mental behavior, not necessarily an improvement?

No. I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I might vote straight blue ticket but what you're not getting at is mindset. As a democrat I'd vote blue just to toe the party line. The republicans are obviously the bad guys from the democratic perspective. That mindset doesn't weigh as heavily when not affiliated with a party. The next election is in May and I'm already planning on how I will be voting rather than voting out of any sense of loyalty. The mindset is completely different.

[Coax]

my cursory internet sleuthing has discovered that this may have all originated on /pol/ and we are witnessing one of the greatest trolls of all time

[VomKriege]

GAMERGATE ! 4CHAN POL ! 

EDIT : Next 4(?) years are gonna be rough considering Trump probably has accrued in his life an unlimited supply of questionable words and deeds to mine. Political discourse in the US will probably suffer as a result (Obama hysteria but scaled up to much more than a vocal minority and crackpots) and I don't know where you'll be when he finally leave office. Hopefully a backlash against demagogues but maybe he's just heralding several more politicians taking cues from him...

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819164172781060096

[Samson Manhug]

my cursory internet sleuthing has discovered that this may have all originated on /pol/ and we are witnessing one of the greatest trolls of all time

(Image removed from quote.)

Post of the century, people. HoF this and front page it right now.

[Momo]

my cursory internet sleuthing has discovered that this may have all originated on /pol/ and we are witnessing one of the greatest trolls of all time

(Image removed from quote.)

[Phoenix Dark]

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/819170972326625281

 

[Brehvolution]

my cursory internet sleuthing has discovered that this may have all originated on /pol/ and we are witnessing one of the greatest trolls of all time

(Image removed from quote.)

[Joe Molotov]

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/819170972326625281

 

Can we expect a steady stream of information at this point?

[brawndolicious]

If any one of the claims in the 35 page report have video/audio proof and the CIA or MI6 can get their hands on it, then he's going to prison. The Russians probably recorded everything and at this point, Trump would be a burned asset so it may make sense to destroy those records to reduce the fallout. My feeling is that there was some concrete evidence in the report but the vast majority of the claims are based on corroboration from trusted sources.

[Raist]

Even though we know full well that the same science at one point said that African's aren't human beings. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison of course, because there's plenty of science and observations in the existence of climate change compared to African's not being human. The same science that up until twenty years ago said that gay people were mentally ill.

The fuck are you talking about

[Himu]

Icon coax

[Himu]

This is going around in conservative circles apparently

[Joe Molotov]

something something something sextape orgy

[Himu]

I want to thank Coax for posting t_d to see into the mind of these people. They are absolutely clowning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5nakv9/state_of_liberals_in_2017/

[Phoenix Dark]

Science also can't provide evidence of missing links to prove evolution. Himu is right.

[helios]

[Himu]

I have to catch up on Always Sunny. I watched since season....5?

Yeah, shoving science down people's throats as if it's infallible and inherently correct, even if the data is there, Probabaly isn't the best way to win.

[Joe Molotov]

How do you win at science?

[Brehvolution]

The birther king who's team in Hawaii uncovered something big calling out fake news.

[I'm a Puppy!]

Gee. It's almost like Trump shouldn't have messed with the intelligence community....If only there was some sort of warning it might have gone bad

[helios]

I have to catch up on Always Sunny. I watched since season....5?

Yeah, shoving science down people's throats as if it's infallible and inherently correct, even if the data is there, Probabaly isn't the best way to win.

Treating something as fact isn't a religion, anyway. Facts are facts. Their immutable. Our understanding of them is what changes. Those facts are true whether or not we believe them. Water stays wet, the sky remains blue, humans are heating up the planet, etc.

That said, just shouting facts at someone isn't going to make them change their mind. It'll most likely do the opposite. They have to be receptive to it. If someone keeps their mind closed off to anything new or anything that contradicts their preconceptions, there is no use in challenging them. But if someone has that spark of curiosity, then it should be nurtured and cultivated using science and facts.

[Himu]

How do you win at science?

I'm talking about climate change. Mac uses an argument that science can be wrong. The scene is satirical but people actually use this argument to deny climate change and evolution. How are you supposed to argue or make people believe in climate change if the totality of your argument is science, which they clearly don't trust? Surely the argument should be framed in a different way and then the science eased into it rather than telling people to outright trust science.

[benjipwns]

It's not "reckless broadening", everything I mentioned is connected to the far-right economic ideology the Democrats are considering the default in the country and play by its rules. In fact many leftist intellectuals consider the Democrats even more dangerous than republicans because they're the ones bringing stability to neoliberalism while the other rightwing clowns usually bring economic chaos.

Was there neoliberalism before 1978? Who were/are the major proponents and theorists of neoliberal thought?

Did Milton Freidman, Frederich Hayek or Walter Lippman found neoliberalism? When they founded it how did they define it as distinct from liberalism and thus deserving of the "neo-" tag?

Can you be a neoliberal and a neoconservative? When are we getting neoneosocialism?

[benjipwns]

It expands from corporatism and the status quo of privatization on every facet of society which the US certainly meets to humongous wealth inequality, the deterioration of labor rights, corruption, war and globalization.

You know who would find this interesting? Neocorporatists!

[Brehvolution]

And they all have Neopets. 

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/819231128758480897


This is like a comedy sketch you'd see on an Adult Swim show. Except it's real.

[Phoenix Dark]

I only posted the buzzfeed thing to help get you guys out the bubble and introduce you to different types of journalism. We can't be confined to one set of sources or dogma.

[studyguy]

Deep state films were always about some super subtle but nefarious under the table dealing that sought to undermine the very fabric of our society.

Not some video of a dude in a hotel room pissing on a couple of cheap Russian hookers and shit. Hollywood needs to step up its game. 


 

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/819240419280166912

 

[Himu]

This fuckery is hilarious and terrifying

[Joe Molotov]

His other name? Albert Einstein.

[Joe Molotov]

[Himu]

This fuckery is hilarious and terrifying

It's nice to know I have normal sexual preferences and am not into weird sexual shit like golden showers. I mean sure I might furiously fap to some fucked up tentacle hentai, but no more than that.

You think fake boobs are better than real boobs and have never touched a boob.

[benjipwns]

Kurt EichenwaldVerified account
‏@kurteichenwald
Whats weird -- reporters went nowhere on Russia pre-election. Now they are going further than my foreign intel sources say is true.

wait, now i'm totally confused

[benjipwns]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/opinion/russias-dnc-hack-was-only-the-start.html

Imagine the headlines if, in 2015, Russian agents had leapt out of a van at 2 a.m. in Southeast Washington and broken into the Democratic National Committee offices using sophisticated tools and techniques to steal tens of thousands of documents, including the names and Social Security numbers of donors and employees, and confidential memorandums about campaign strategy for the presidential election.

The world would have been aghast. It would have been, people would say, worse than Watergate.

Something similar did, in fact, happen at the D.N.C. two years ago, and it was worse than Watergate.

When North Koreans hacked Sony Pictures in 2014 in retaliation for making the satire “The Interview,” I was much more disturbed by the embarrassing things the movie executives said in emails to one another than by how easy it was for a dictator to punish critics in the United States. It wasn’t until I lived through the Russian hackings of Democratic staff members and organizations that I realized how dangerous such an attitude could be.

I saw it firsthand in July, when I was asked about the first wave of stolen documents on ABC’s “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” I thought it was a bombshell — Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee! — but my alarm was dismissed by the news media and our opponents as merely campaign spin, feigned distress meant to dodge real questions about how the embarrassing messages might hurt Hillary Clinton’s prospects.

This perception has to change. I’m not referring to the D.N.C. incident in particular, but about cybercrimes in general. Unless we realize how vulnerable we are, we are playing into the hands of foreign aggressors like Mr. Putin.

The chilling effect of these attacks can be very public, and very personal. But they can also be more subtle, impeding dialogue within an organization. For all the fanfare we give the internet for freeing speech, when it is weaponized against you, it can also be used to stifle speech. At the D.N.C., certain conversations could take place only on an encrypted phone app, which made communicating more complicated logistically.

Robby Mook managed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for president.

[Mupepe]

I only posted the buzzfeed thing to help get you guys out the bubble and introduce you to different types of journalism. We can't be confined to one set of sources or dogma.

You mean dogema