10 ms·

> Guantanamo is still open, the NSA is as powerful as ever, a partisan puppet has been installed at the CIA, and Trump has all of these tools at his disposable.

by exo762 10y ago

> Guantanamo is still open, the NSA is as powerful as ever, a partisan puppet has been installed at the CIA, and Trump has all of these tools at his disposable. So, corrupted insiders installed all those tools. Now an outsider gets elected into White House. You know what are the requirements for the post, right? At least 35 years old, American. All parts of that corrupted clique, from Hillary to Jon Stewart, fought tooth and nail to prevent him from being elected. Hillary was known evil. Trump is basically a big unknown. Why can't you give this man a chance? EDIT. I guess I'm judging American politics by European standards. America are so deep in superficial fluff that it can't see what really happened. Left has lost everything because of bullshit of its progressive wing. Outsider has won White House. And you people are talking about Trump being racist - a "fact" discovered during the most vicious presidential campaign of last 50? years.

tptacek 10y ago
Yes, the corrupted clique led by Jon Stewart. Very persuasive!
- exo762 10y ago
  I've watched The Daily Show from other hemisphere, growing up. Really love the dude. But please, he returned from retirement just to lambast a presidential candidate! Reducing his whole carrier of awesomeness to nothing more than being an agent of influence, media hitman for hire! And nowhere in his mind were the "let the people decide, they are not cattle". Yeah, he is charming, smart, did a lot of great things. But during those few months of presidential campaign he lost all moral weight he had in my eyes. Trump is garbage candidate. Hillary is to blame you have him. In Trump vs Bernie race Trump would had a really hard time.
  - hash-set 10y ago
    The Daily Show was never anything but conservative hate given legitimacy by being "comedy." It was a form of political attack that could be denied since it is comedic.
    - Retra 10y ago
      I think the term you're looking for is "satire." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire >Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    > And nowhere in his mind were the "let the people decide, they are not cattle". Yeah, he is charming, smart, did a lot of great things. But during those few months of presidential campaign he lost all moral weight he had in my eyes. Yes, how dare he share his opinion of a presidential candidate!
    - exo762 10y ago
      How what he was doing is different from propaganda? Unless you are implying that propaganda is not something immoral. After all its just sharing his opinion.
      - pcwalton 10y ago
        I'm not particularly interested in debating whether Jon Stewart's analysis of the dynamics underlying the election are accurate or not (though I happen to think they're fairly insightful). The point is that he shared his honest opinion, without intent to mislead. There's nothing morally wrong with that.
WaxProlix 10y ago
I hear this so often, and the response is always the same: By his own words, he's WORSE. He isn't the outsider black horse you think he is, at best he's a scummy businessman and reality TV mook who saw an opportunity to get desperate people like you to project your desires onto a nebulous non-platform full of rhetoric and dog whistles. > Why can't you give this man a chance? Breitbart.com editor for cabinet, his biggest supporter and rabble-rouser during the election. Nice tit for tat there, coming from the 'less corrupt' candidate. Racist piece of human garbage. "Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG." If he were going to be given a chance, I think he's communicated his intent in actions as well as the previous hedged words at this point.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > Racist piece of human garbage. This is why Clinton lost the election. Most people don't buy this hyperbole anymore. Even 1/3rd of Clinton voters don't believe the media anymore. > "Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG." My understanding is that Sessions worked to ensure that a KKK leader, who kidnapped and murdered a black teenager, received the death penalty instead of a life sentence. Isn't this counter-evidence to the assertion that he's a racist? But I guess it's hard to reason when you've made up your mind that your opponents are "human garbage."
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It's evidence that prosecutors are motivated primarily by the scorekeeping of their professions: convictions and successfully-sold sentences. Successfully convicting a KKK leader is also politically expedient for a prosecutor who plans on higher elected office. And, finally, the country is full of virulent racists who nonetheless feel like the KKK is a bunch of toothless goobers. See, for instance, the "Concerned Citizens Council" movement. Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives).
yolesaber 10y ago
>Why can't you give this man a chance? I did. Then he immediately brought on a white nationalist as his closest advisor and is apparently going to name a southern good ol' boy who thinks marijuana is straight up the devil as his Attorney General. Chance thoroughly blown.
- exo762 10y ago
  Obama's Attorney General did anything to legalize? "White nationalist" as Trump's advisor is worse than taking donations for presidential campaign from foreign powers? What he can do? Reintroduce slavery? For real?
  - debaserab2 10y ago
    So, it's somehow okay in your worldview to put a self-described racist in one of the most important government positions because he "can't reintroduce slavery"? For real?
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > a self-described racist Man, even after losing the election, the left still hasn't changed its record. "-ist -ist -ist, -phobe -phobe -phobe!" Most of the electorate doesn't buy it anymore.
      - debaserab2 10y ago
        I don't know how I became a "part of the left" because I used a word to describe a person that matches the definition of the word. Do you assume to know this much about every person's political ideologies based on their choice of words? Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?
        alphapapa 10y ago
        I don't know where you lie on the political spectrum. My comment was an observation of current trends, of which your comment seems to be an example. :) > Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon? Person. Respectfully, I reject the question, which implies that anyone can or should be labeled by a single word. This is part of the problem with American politics. It degrades discussion into "Is not!"/"Is too!" back-and-forth, which is useless. Here's my bottom line: this election has shown how extremely biased the media is. Despite a few columns here and there calling for the media to examine itself and change its ways, the media has not changed. One should take everything one hears about Trump and his administration with many grains of salt. For example, I watched Don Lemon on CNN excoriate Bannon, taking the default position that he is a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, and demanding that one of his guests (the other two of which were anti-Bannon) prove that Bannon was not any of those things. That is not journalism--that is libel.
idlewords 10y ago
We've known Trump was a racist long before he ran for office. He's not an outsider or a newcomer to American public life.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In fact, his entry into "serious" American political life (that is: not as a dabbling Reform Party candidate, an American party chiefly famous for getting a professional wrestler elected as Minnesota's governor) was the racist "birther" movement.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 10y ago
> Left has lost everything because of bullshit of its progressive wing. I wouldn't call Hillary and her ideology "left". It is more neo-liberalism or corporatism perhaps. There not much "left" in there. If she was "leftist" she would have cared and talked more about people who have no jobs, or about basic income and so on. Anti-globalisation and anti-NAFTA is a also a leftist cause. It is funny that as soon as Trump picked it up, the neo-liberals distanced themselves from as quickly as possible. For example Chomsky has been harping on for decades about it. It is rather informative to read about it: https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ (excerpt) --- The day after NAFTA passed, the New York Times had its first article on its expected impact in the New York region. (Its conclusions apply to GATT too.) It was a very upbeat article. They talked about how wonderful NAFTA was going to be [...] there’ll be some losers too: women, Hispanics, other minorities, and semi-skilled workers-in other words, about two-thirds of the work force. But everyone else will do fine. Just as anyone who was paying attention knew, the purpose of NAFTA was to create an even smaller sector of highly privileged people-investors, professionals, managerial classes. (Bear in mind that this is a rich country, so this privileged sector, although smaller, still isn’t tiny.) It will work fine for them, and the general population will suffer. The prediction for Mexico is exactly the same. The leading financial journal in Mexico, which is very pro-NAFTA, estimated that Mexico would lose about 25% of its manufacturing capacity in the first few years and about 15% of its manufacturing labor force. In addition, cheap US agricultural exports are expected to drive several million people off the land. That’s going to mean a substantial increase in the unemployed workforce in Mexico, which of course will drive down wages. --- Note Chomsky makes a connection there about a predicted flood of immigrants from the South (which happened, so what was a good analysis). I didn't listen much to Trump to know if he ever made that connection. Bernie is more of a leftist if you wish as well. He was very suspicious of immigration and was a anti-globalist in a way as well. Open borders policy for him was a "Koch brothers" right wing thing. He got quite upset about immigrants there flooding in and talks about "job creation" in US He says it clearly here: https://youtu.be/S5vOKKMipSA?t=342 https://youtu.be/S5vOKKMipSA?t=342 So as the saying from Twin Peaks goes, the owls are not what they seem
finid 10y ago
Trump is basically a big unknown. Actually, wrong! Trump, by his words and actions, is a known known. Starting from his Birther campaign against Obama, to his utterances during the presidential campaign, to his confirmed cabinet appointments, we know who the man is. Let's hope we survive the next 4-8 years. If we're lucky, he'll serve just one term.

by exo762 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Yes, the corrupted clique led by Jon Stewart. Very persuasive!

exo762 10y ago
I've watched The Daily Show from other hemisphere, growing up. Really love the dude. But please, he returned from retirement just to lambast a presidential candidate! Reducing his whole carrier of awesomeness to nothing more than being an agent of influence, media hitman for hire! And nowhere in his mind were the "let the people decide, they are not cattle". Yeah, he is charming, smart, did a lot of great things. But during those few months of presidential campaign he lost all moral weight he had in my eyes. Trump is garbage candidate. Hillary is to blame you have him. In Trump vs Bernie race Trump would had a really hard time.
- hash-set 10y ago
  The Daily Show was never anything but conservative hate given legitimacy by being "comedy." It was a form of political attack that could be denied since it is comedic.
  - Retra 10y ago
    I think the term you're looking for is "satire." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire >Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > And nowhere in his mind were the "let the people decide, they are not cattle". Yeah, he is charming, smart, did a lot of great things. But during those few months of presidential campaign he lost all moral weight he had in my eyes. Yes, how dare he share his opinion of a presidential candidate!
  - exo762 10y ago
    How what he was doing is different from propaganda? Unless you are implying that propaganda is not something immoral. After all its just sharing his opinion.
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      I'm not particularly interested in debating whether Jon Stewart's analysis of the dynamics underlying the election are accurate or not (though I happen to think they're fairly insightful). The point is that he shared his honest opinion, without intent to mislead. There's nothing morally wrong with that.

WaxProlix 10y ago

I hear this so often, and the response is always the same: By his own words, he's WORSE. He isn't the outsider black horse you think he is, at best he's a scummy businessman and reality TV mook who saw an opportunity to get desperate people like you to project your desires onto a nebulous non-platform full of rhetoric and dog whistles. > Why can't you give this man a chance? Breitbart.com editor for cabinet, his biggest supporter and rabble-rouser during the election. Nice tit for tat there, coming from the 'less corrupt' candidate. Racist piece of human garbage. "Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG." If he were going to be given a chance, I think he's communicated his intent in actions as well as the previous hedged words at this point.

alphapapa 10y ago
> Racist piece of human garbage. This is why Clinton lost the election. Most people don't buy this hyperbole anymore. Even 1/3rd of Clinton voters don't believe the media anymore. > "Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG." My understanding is that Sessions worked to ensure that a KKK leader, who kidnapped and murdered a black teenager, received the death penalty instead of a life sentence. Isn't this counter-evidence to the assertion that he's a racist? But I guess it's hard to reason when you've made up your mind that your opponents are "human garbage."
- tptacek 10y ago
  It's evidence that prosecutors are motivated primarily by the scorekeeping of their professions: convictions and successfully-sold sentences. Successfully convicting a KKK leader is also politically expedient for a prosecutor who plans on higher elected office. And, finally, the country is full of virulent racists who nonetheless feel like the KKK is a bunch of toothless goobers. See, for instance, the "Concerned Citizens Council" movement. Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives).

yolesaber 10y ago

>Why can't you give this man a chance? I did. Then he immediately brought on a white nationalist as his closest advisor and is apparently going to name a southern good ol' boy who thinks marijuana is straight up the devil as his Attorney General. Chance thoroughly blown.

exo762 10y ago
Obama's Attorney General did anything to legalize? "White nationalist" as Trump's advisor is worse than taking donations for presidential campaign from foreign powers? What he can do? Reintroduce slavery? For real?
- debaserab2 10y ago
  So, it's somehow okay in your worldview to put a self-described racist in one of the most important government positions because he "can't reintroduce slavery"? For real?
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > a self-described racist Man, even after losing the election, the left still hasn't changed its record. "-ist -ist -ist, -phobe -phobe -phobe!" Most of the electorate doesn't buy it anymore.
    - debaserab2 10y ago
      I don't know how I became a "part of the left" because I used a word to describe a person that matches the definition of the word. Do you assume to know this much about every person's political ideologies based on their choice of words? Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        I don't know where you lie on the political spectrum. My comment was an observation of current trends, of which your comment seems to be an example. :) > Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon? Person. Respectfully, I reject the question, which implies that anyone can or should be labeled by a single word. This is part of the problem with American politics. It degrades discussion into "Is not!"/"Is too!" back-and-forth, which is useless. Here's my bottom line: this election has shown how extremely biased the media is. Despite a few columns here and there calling for the media to examine itself and change its ways, the media has not changed. One should take everything one hears about Trump and his administration with many grains of salt. For example, I watched Don Lemon on CNN excoriate Bannon, taking the default position that he is a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, and demanding that one of his guests (the other two of which were anti-Bannon) prove that Bannon was not any of those things. That is not journalism--that is libel.

idlewords 10y ago

We've known Trump was a racist long before he ran for office. He's not an outsider or a newcomer to American public life.

tptacek 10y ago
In fact, his entry into "serious" American political life (that is: not as a dabbling Reform Party candidate, an American party chiefly famous for getting a professional wrestler elected as Minnesota's governor) was the racist "birther" movement.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 10y ago

> Left has lost everything because of bullshit of its progressive wing. I wouldn't call Hillary and her ideology "left". It is more neo-liberalism or corporatism perhaps. There not much "left" in there. If she was "leftist" she would have cared and talked more about people who have no jobs, or about basic income and so on. Anti-globalisation and anti-NAFTA is a also a leftist cause. It is funny that as soon as Trump picked it up, the neo-liberals distanced themselves from as quickly as possible. For example Chomsky has been harping on for decades about it. It is rather informative to read about it: https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ (excerpt) --- The day after NAFTA passed, the New York Times had its first article on its expected impact in the New York region. (Its conclusions apply to GATT too.) It was a very upbeat article. They talked about how wonderful NAFTA was going to be [...] there’ll be some losers too: women, Hispanics, other minorities, and semi-skilled workers-in other words, about two-thirds of the work force. But everyone else will do fine. Just as anyone who was paying attention knew, the purpose of NAFTA was to create an even smaller sector of highly privileged people-investors, professionals, managerial classes. (Bear in mind that this is a rich country, so this privileged sector, although smaller, still isn’t tiny.) It will work fine for them, and the general population will suffer. The prediction for Mexico is exactly the same. The leading financial journal in Mexico, which is very pro-NAFTA, estimated that Mexico would lose about 25% of its manufacturing capacity in the first few years and about 15% of its manufacturing labor force. In addition, cheap US agricultural exports are expected to drive several million people off the land. That’s going to mean a substantial increase in the unemployed workforce in Mexico, which of course will drive down wages. --- Note Chomsky makes a connection there about a predicted flood of immigrants from the South (which happened, so what was a good analysis). I didn't listen much to Trump to know if he ever made that connection. Bernie is more of a leftist if you wish as well. He was very suspicious of immigration and was a anti-globalist in a way as well. Open borders policy for him was a "Koch brothers" right wing thing. He got quite upset about immigrants there flooding in and talks about "job creation" in US He says it clearly here: https://youtu.be/S5vOKKMipSA?t=342 https://youtu.be/S5vOKKMipSA?t=342 So as the saying from Twin Peaks goes, the owls are not what they seem

finid 10y ago

Trump is basically a big unknown. Actually, wrong! Trump, by his words and actions, is a known known. Starting from his Birther campaign against Obama, to his utterances during the presidential campaign, to his confirmed cabinet appointments, we know who the man is. Let's hope we survive the next 4-8 years. If we're lucky, he'll serve just one term.