9 ms·

Germans revered a business leader who turned out to be a Russian asset. But at least they accepted the evidence when it was presented. Americans elected a pres

by pavlov 2y ago

Germans revered a business leader who turned out to be a Russian asset. But at least they accepted the evidence when it was presented. Americans elected a president who behaves exactly like a Russian asset. And no evidence could make them change their mind about it. Who are the gullible people again?

bloomingeek 2y ago
I agree and I'm from the states. History will be unkind to trump and the GOP, who are playing with people's lives and fire.
- jdhendrickson 2y ago
  It depends on who writes the history books in the states, and it's not looking good.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    It also depends on whether book written is deemed illegal.
    - kevinventullo 2y ago
      Winners create the 5-second infotainment TikTok historical summary.
      - collingreen 2y ago
        We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      history is full of books that were deemed illegal that won in the end.
      - lazide 2y ago
        And you’ll never know about the 100x other ones that ‘lost’.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        do you know about the 100x other ones that "lost"? I ask because you seem pretty certain they exist.
        lazide 2y ago
        So the library of Alexandria never burned? All the referenced lost works from Rome were made up? Or many, many other examples.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        the discussion was about works that were declared illegal. The burning of the library of Alexandria under Theophilus has some connection to that idea, but it is I think wider. Every referenced lost work from Rome was not lost because they were declared illegal.
        lazide 2y ago
        The discussion was ‘history is written by the victors’, which isn’t just making books illegal. It also includes making things (intentionally) irrelevant, destroying old copies, etc. Hell, most early Bibles count, or do you think the council of Nicea resulted in something other than what is being described for large swathes of early church writings?
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        the comment I replied to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43296466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43296466 >It also depends on whether book written is deemed illegal. the discussion may be wider than that comment, but my comment, even if one did not want to give it a charitable reading and was really intent on winning an HN argument today for some reason - which I understand, I been there - would really be most reasonably interpreted as a comment that making books illegal often has the exact opposite of the desired result. With charity one might also conclude that there is an implied link between quality of the winners in these scenarios, but anyway you seem to have some particular problem and unwillingness to say "huh, well the guy replied to a comment regarding making books illegal and only seems to think that is what is under discussion, I guess no arguing him out of that" so I guess we should just stop rather than you throwing out examples in which books have been changed, under the mistaken assumption that I know nothing about this history (I have read the Apocrypha, the Pseudopigrapha, and the "forgotten books of Eden", so I believe I have a reasonable knowledge regarding your latest sally)
- lazyeye 2y ago
  The majority of US voters disagree with you. I think the latest poll showed 70% of people like what Doge is doing for example.
  - t0mas88 2y ago
    Sure, but that's because they don't understand the bigger picture. The UK with Brexit is a good example. The majority of the voters believed it was a good idea, due to campaigns not really based on facts. Now they're all angry because the results suck for them and the campaigns were mostly lies. The same is going to happen with the US majority backing Trump's plans. They all believe a lot of lies he keeps telling. And in a few years they're going to be angry because they then face the consequences like high prices for everyday purchases and terrible healthcare for the working class. It's just that today they don't understand yet what the results of Trump's policies are going to be. And shouting "Canada/Europe/China has been very bad for us" gets them excited, simple human nature, our group vs the other.
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      "Sure, but that's because they don't understand the bigger picture." And there it is! The info given by the current administration is as bewildering as it is incomplete. Russia, governmental agencies, Medicaid(!), medical researchers (who are shaking in their boots about their futures)...it's a long list with very little reasonable excuses. Musk? I'll stop here. The point being, we won't know until years from now the damage that's being done to both the states and the world stage.
      - lazyeye 2y ago
        Just because you're bewildered doesn't mean other people are. I think most people understand the scale of the problem and the need for massive action to address it. And they also understand that mistakes will be made but they will be quickly resolved. And I think most people are relieved that for the first time in a hundred years (ever?) somebody is actually doing something to address govt fraud, waste and abuse. Something more than lots of talk followed by no action which is what has always happened previously.
- crossroadsguy 2y ago
  Go and ask the general populace of UK (you know what, focus on the school and college goers) and ask what their country and their His/Her Royal Fartnesses have done to a large part of this globe and revel in the genuine blanks they draw! History writing my arse!
- bitsage 2y ago
  It will probably be kinder to him than to the neoliberals who thought that giving trillions to an authoritarian regime would somehow make them a liberal democracy.
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    Do tell! Give sources.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dwattttt 2y ago
Both of them. The two groups you named.
drdaeman 2y ago
If the discussion is about A, and, let's suppose, some P(A) is true, if P(B) is also true, but discussion never mentions B - what's the point of solely bringing the fact of truthfulness of P(B) into the picture?
- pavlov 2y ago
  Because P(A) is suggested as being unique to A?
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    Fair point. However, I didn’t get that impression at all - in my reading the preceding conversation didn’t seem to suggest anything about uniqueness or make any comparisons. Would you mind quoting the piece that made you think it’s suggested so, please?
wisty 2y ago
Asset is a weasel word. You think Trump takes orders from Putin? He's too much an egotist, and he sent the Javalins to Ukreain when lots of the establishment thought it was a bad idea since the experts thought Putin wasn't mad enough to invade again. (Even if he took Kyiv in the time the US took Baghdad, the counterinsurgency to follow would / will break them). Yeah, IMO Putin does think Trump is incompetent, easily manipulated, corrupt, and easily influenced by actual assets. Elon is similar, but rather than incompetent, he has aligned interests (Russia is a gas station, and Elon sells EVs, both want the price of gas to skyrocket and I suspect both think US global power basically exists to keep gas prices low). I'm in shock that more people don't realise that Elon / Trump foreign policy is easily explained by Elon wanting higher gas prices, and Trump being easily manipulated. There's no solid evidence Trump is secretly and knowingly working for Putin, that's just a cooker left-wing conspiracy theory IMO.
- jldugger 2y ago
  > There's no solid evidence Trump is secretly and knowingly working for Putin Not enough to indict, anyways, but there's a spectrum between insane left-wing conspiracy and a jury conviction. Paul Manafort, Trumps 2016 campaign chairman, was sentenced to 7 years prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy against the United States. His protege Rick Gates did 45 days in a plea bargain deal. Then there was the time Trump stood up at his campaign podium and directly asked Russian hackers to leak more Clinton emails: > “Russia, if you’re listening,” Trump said, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” And during his presidency, he went out of his way to take secret meetings with Putin in Hamburg Germany[1], among other places. We have no idea what was discussed, which seemingly checks the "secret" box at least. As for "knowing," well, he directly asked for their help, but who knows how mentally "there" he is. Comes down to "for" I guess, as I'm sure he'd characterize it as "with"? [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump...
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
WrongAssumption 2y ago
Sorry, how does a different group being gullible present as evidence as another group not being gullible?
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  I'm thinking the assumption here was the accusation of gullibility being made against the first group was being made by a member of the second group, and the argument was that the second group presented greater gullibility traits. However it should probably be noted that it was official government organizations of the first group that were being gullible whereas the official government organizations of the second group all seem to know exactly what's up, but either seem unable to do anything or are actively participating.
ineedasername 2y ago
Jepeordy theme song... "What is 'inclusive or' Alex?" Alex: "Yes! And that will.close out the 'boolean operators & avoidable horrors' category for this game."
__turbobrew__ 2y ago
Yes
orochimaaru 2y ago
There was no evidence of him being a Russian asset. The Steele dossier and the corresponding DNC opposition research have been discredited. Remember there were 4 years of Democratic Party government. They could never find enough to indict him on treason. The best option to actually convict him was in Atlanta for racketeering to win an election. There the democratic attorney general blew it by hiring the prosecutor she was sleeping with.
- astrange 2y ago
  > They could never find enough to indict him on treason. Treason is strictly defined in the constitution and doesn't apply here because we aren't at war with Russia. He probably did engage in seditious conspiracy or such things with them, via Roger Stone and Wikileaks, but they successfully obstructed justice enough to get away with it.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  Their best option...? Wouldn't their best option be to put up a candidate and policies that voters actually liked?
  - orochimaaru 2y ago
    They as in the republicans did. Trump won the popular vote. The democrats are a complete shit show. They still are and seem completely blind to the reasons they lost.
    - lazyeye 2y ago
      Exactly.
- wetpaws 2y ago
  [dead]
- archagon 2y ago
  Discredited how? I recall a whole bunch of people in his administration getting arrested. (Though not the president himself.)
astrange 2y ago
Americans didn't elect him because they believed anything he said. They were basically paying as little attention as they possibly could and have no idea what he has ever said about anything - if you go and read interviews with swing voters they just have entirely imaginary ideas of what he's like. The only thing they remember is he was president in 2019. They don't reliably know who it was in 2020/2021 though. (I think the fixed-term strong presidential system is essentially unfixable here. The country needs snap elections.)

by pavlov 2y ago

bloomingeek 2y ago

I agree and I'm from the states. History will be unkind to trump and the GOP, who are playing with people's lives and fire.

jdhendrickson 2y ago
It depends on who writes the history books in the states, and it's not looking good.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  It also depends on whether book written is deemed illegal.
  - kevinventullo 2y ago
    Winners create the 5-second infotainment TikTok historical summary.
    - collingreen 2y ago
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    history is full of books that were deemed illegal that won in the end.
    - lazide 2y ago
      And you’ll never know about the 100x other ones that ‘lost’.
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        do you know about the 100x other ones that "lost"? I ask because you seem pretty certain they exist.
        lazide 2y ago
        So the library of Alexandria never burned? All the referenced lost works from Rome were made up? Or many, many other examples.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        the discussion was about works that were declared illegal. The burning of the library of Alexandria under Theophilus has some connection to that idea, but it is I think wider. Every referenced lost work from Rome was not lost because they were declared illegal.
        lazide 2y ago
        The discussion was ‘history is written by the victors’, which isn’t just making books illegal. It also includes making things (intentionally) irrelevant, destroying old copies, etc. Hell, most early Bibles count, or do you think the council of Nicea resulted in something other than what is being described for large swathes of early church writings?
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        the comment I replied to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43296466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43296466 >It also depends on whether book written is deemed illegal. the discussion may be wider than that comment, but my comment, even if one did not want to give it a charitable reading and was really intent on winning an HN argument today for some reason - which I understand, I been there - would really be most reasonably interpreted as a comment that making books illegal often has the exact opposite of the desired result. With charity one might also conclude that there is an implied link between quality of the winners in these scenarios, but anyway you seem to have some particular problem and unwillingness to say "huh, well the guy replied to a comment regarding making books illegal and only seems to think that is what is under discussion, I guess no arguing him out of that" so I guess we should just stop rather than you throwing out examples in which books have been changed, under the mistaken assumption that I know nothing about this history (I have read the Apocrypha, the Pseudopigrapha, and the "forgotten books of Eden", so I believe I have a reasonable knowledge regarding your latest sally)
lazyeye 2y ago
The majority of US voters disagree with you. I think the latest poll showed 70% of people like what Doge is doing for example.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  Sure, but that's because they don't understand the bigger picture. The UK with Brexit is a good example. The majority of the voters believed it was a good idea, due to campaigns not really based on facts. Now they're all angry because the results suck for them and the campaigns were mostly lies. The same is going to happen with the US majority backing Trump's plans. They all believe a lot of lies he keeps telling. And in a few years they're going to be angry because they then face the consequences like high prices for everyday purchases and terrible healthcare for the working class. It's just that today they don't understand yet what the results of Trump's policies are going to be. And shouting "Canada/Europe/China has been very bad for us" gets them excited, simple human nature, our group vs the other.
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    "Sure, but that's because they don't understand the bigger picture." And there it is! The info given by the current administration is as bewildering as it is incomplete. Russia, governmental agencies, Medicaid(!), medical researchers (who are shaking in their boots about their futures)...it's a long list with very little reasonable excuses. Musk? I'll stop here. The point being, we won't know until years from now the damage that's being done to both the states and the world stage.
    - lazyeye 2y ago
      Just because you're bewildered doesn't mean other people are. I think most people understand the scale of the problem and the need for massive action to address it. And they also understand that mistakes will be made but they will be quickly resolved. And I think most people are relieved that for the first time in a hundred years (ever?) somebody is actually doing something to address govt fraud, waste and abuse. Something more than lots of talk followed by no action which is what has always happened previously.
crossroadsguy 2y ago
Go and ask the general populace of UK (you know what, focus on the school and college goers) and ask what their country and their His/Her Royal Fartnesses have done to a large part of this globe and revel in the genuine blanks they draw! History writing my arse!
bitsage 2y ago
It will probably be kinder to him than to the neoliberals who thought that giving trillions to an authoritarian regime would somehow make them a liberal democracy.
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  Do tell! Give sources.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dwattttt 2y ago

Both of them. The two groups you named.

drdaeman 2y ago

If the discussion is about A, and, let's suppose, some P(A) is true, if P(B) is also true, but discussion never mentions B - what's the point of solely bringing the fact of truthfulness of P(B) into the picture?

pavlov 2y ago
Because P(A) is suggested as being unique to A?
- drdaeman 2y ago
  Fair point. However, I didn’t get that impression at all - in my reading the preceding conversation didn’t seem to suggest anything about uniqueness or make any comparisons. Would you mind quoting the piece that made you think it’s suggested so, please?

wisty 2y ago

Asset is a weasel word. You think Trump takes orders from Putin? He's too much an egotist, and he sent the Javalins to Ukreain when lots of the establishment thought it was a bad idea since the experts thought Putin wasn't mad enough to invade again. (Even if he took Kyiv in the time the US took Baghdad, the counterinsurgency to follow would / will break them). Yeah, IMO Putin does think Trump is incompetent, easily manipulated, corrupt, and easily influenced by actual assets. Elon is similar, but rather than incompetent, he has aligned interests (Russia is a gas station, and Elon sells EVs, both want the price of gas to skyrocket and I suspect both think US global power basically exists to keep gas prices low). I'm in shock that more people don't realise that Elon / Trump foreign policy is easily explained by Elon wanting higher gas prices, and Trump being easily manipulated. There's no solid evidence Trump is secretly and knowingly working for Putin, that's just a cooker left-wing conspiracy theory IMO.

jldugger 2y ago
> There's no solid evidence Trump is secretly and knowingly working for Putin Not enough to indict, anyways, but there's a spectrum between insane left-wing conspiracy and a jury conviction. Paul Manafort, Trumps 2016 campaign chairman, was sentenced to 7 years prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy against the United States. His protege Rick Gates did 45 days in a plea bargain deal. Then there was the time Trump stood up at his campaign podium and directly asked Russian hackers to leak more Clinton emails: > “Russia, if you’re listening,” Trump said, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” And during his presidency, he went out of his way to take secret meetings with Putin in Hamburg Germany[1], among other places. We have no idea what was discussed, which seemingly checks the "secret" box at least. As for "knowing," well, he directly asked for their help, but who knows how mentally "there" he is. Comes down to "for" I guess, as I'm sure he'd characterize it as "with"? [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump...
- noworriesnate 2y ago

WrongAssumption 2y ago

Sorry, how does a different group being gullible present as evidence as another group not being gullible?

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
I'm thinking the assumption here was the accusation of gullibility being made against the first group was being made by a member of the second group, and the argument was that the second group presented greater gullibility traits. However it should probably be noted that it was official government organizations of the first group that were being gullible whereas the official government organizations of the second group all seem to know exactly what's up, but either seem unable to do anything or are actively participating.

ineedasername 2y ago

Jepeordy theme song... "What is 'inclusive or' Alex?" Alex: "Yes! And that will.close out the 'boolean operators & avoidable horrors' category for this game."

__turbobrew__ 2y ago

Yes

orochimaaru 2y ago

There was no evidence of him being a Russian asset. The Steele dossier and the corresponding DNC opposition research have been discredited. Remember there were 4 years of Democratic Party government. They could never find enough to indict him on treason. The best option to actually convict him was in Atlanta for racketeering to win an election. There the democratic attorney general blew it by hiring the prosecutor she was sleeping with.

astrange 2y ago
> They could never find enough to indict him on treason. Treason is strictly defined in the constitution and doesn't apply here because we aren't at war with Russia. He probably did engage in seditious conspiracy or such things with them, via Roger Stone and Wikileaks, but they successfully obstructed justice enough to get away with it.
lazyeye 2y ago
Their best option...? Wouldn't their best option be to put up a candidate and policies that voters actually liked?
- orochimaaru 2y ago
  They as in the republicans did. Trump won the popular vote. The democrats are a complete shit show. They still are and seem completely blind to the reasons they lost.
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    Exactly.
wetpaws 2y ago
[dead]
archagon 2y ago
Discredited how? I recall a whole bunch of people in his administration getting arrested. (Though not the president himself.)

astrange 2y ago

Americans didn't elect him because they believed anything he said. They were basically paying as little attention as they possibly could and have no idea what he has ever said about anything - if you go and read interviews with swing voters they just have entirely imaginary ideas of what he's like. The only thing they remember is he was president in 2019. They don't reliably know who it was in 2020/2021 though. (I think the fixed-term strong presidential system is essentially unfixable here. The country needs snap elections.)