Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I hate the republican party as much as anyone... but it's really hard for me to be on board with the passion the left has invested in the russian meddling controversy.

It's probably worth noting that actual left-ways politicians haven't been investing much passion into russia's meddling with our elections. Not happy about it, but it's not some kind of consuming focus. The two driving forces behind the reason the issue's getting signal boosted so hard is the fourth estate shitting the bed again and discussion getting stuck on it because the media keeps blabbering about it (well, that and like every other day it coming out the GOP was either in bed with them or played like rubes). Interference in general isn't a good thing, but folks probably aren't as tied up in it as you'd think.

It's definitely a focus among the left-wing social media presences and banter among people I know and the discussion in this very thread.  You're right that the media likes to keep a focus on it with constantly shoving every tidbit they can find in our faces with a "SCANDALOUS!!!" tabloidesque presentation.  But it doesn't speak well for the base when that carries through uncritically into casual conversation in spite of larger perspective that could be taken on it or other things going on.  It's also definitely a hard focus in any discussion involving Assange's legal situation and reasoning for the left's dramatic 180 on him.

[Frumple]

Well. Yeah, to that last one. Of course it's going to be a hard focus when the whole 'functionally or literally an agent of a foreign government' thing is most of why folks have 180'd. Lotta' your motives turn suspect when it turns out you're funneling information on behalf of someone's intelligence agencies...

Though in the immediate state of things, yeah, there's going to be a fair amount of attention even if you discount the fourth estate nonsense. Report was pretty big and the shitshow that's surrounded it (fuuuuck barr) has just made things worse. But overall and in the period prior it's mostly seemed to be more a sideshow than anything else.

Probably doesn't help that the nature of the report means it's getting brought up alongside something legit more serious on the domestic front (the obstruction stuff, where we're looking at either congress does its duty in the face of a criminal POTUS one way or another or shit hits the fan right and proper), though.

[Max™]

[snip]...either in bed with them or played like rubes

Don't you mean played like rubles?

[smjjames]

Impeaching him isn't a matter of partisan attack, it's a constitutional necessity. If our leaders can't act to punish clear wrongdoing, then it we give up on the rule of law entirely.

We lost that fight already in 2008, when Democrats not only refused to pursue consequences for Bush's crimes against humanity and weakening of domestic civil rights enabled by brazen lies to the public, but then refused to reinstate those civil rights and turned around and awarded him a goddamn liberty medal.

While their careers may be based on public displays of opposition to each other, they still have more in common with each other than they do with us.  Even if they don't all engage in the same bad behaviors such as, say, taking bribe money, they will still naturally view the issue from a different position than we will.  We have little need to question if we might be faced with such a temptation in a moment of weakness or stupidity.  They do.  They all have a vested interest in obstructing precedents that may be turned on them one day.  It's the same principle behind good cops obstructing justice against bad cops.  In a public-facing context, they will symbolically distance themselves and beg us to understand that they're not all the same.  But they'll be thinking to themselves "what if I fuck up someday in a way that looks bad."  They don't have to all be the same to still have a shared culture and incentive for professional solidarity in conflict with ethical duty to the public.  That is only overcome by the public engaging in direct action.

Here's a thought. 

I've been seeing all this outrage the last couple years over Russian influence in American politics.  It's been used so fiercely and passionately as a full stop justification for condemning anyone associated with Trump, and to reinforce this conviction that it was of supreme importance to support anyone other than trump no matter what to protect the sovereignty of our government and so on.

Can we get the same outrage against Israeli influence?  Let's see what's left of American politics after that -- Democrat or Republican. 

I hate the republican party as much as anyone... but it's really hard for me to be on board with the passion the left has invested in the russian meddling controversy.  It reeks of the same short-sighted partisan tribalism that is normally being driven by republicans.  Because if the principles behind it were applied universally, the U.S. political field on both sides would be scorched earth.

How do you get the same outrage at Israel without sounding anti Semitic though? With the obvious answer of ‘choose your words carefully’.

[Frumple]

[snip]...either in bed with them or played like rubes

Don't you mean played like rubles?

This is America, is nyet rubles here.

Though it did occur to me, @SG, that if you swapped state actors to israel, while there'd be a lot more eggshell walking due to the issues involved with not tripping over enough dog whistles to wake up every canine in a fifty mile radius, you'd probably have about as much (or more, given the anti-semitism angle some fucks in this country would salivate over) shit flipping.

This isn't a matter of just influence -- we have official routes for that sort of thing, after all, and while people get concerned it's usually relatively low key -- but rather how it was peddled. I don't think it would matter who it was if another state pulled the shit Russia has over the last few years, people would be pretty pissed if it came to light. This shit wasn't just influence, there's been no small amount of outright criminal behavior going on related to it.

[misko27]

Can we get the same outrage against Israeli influence?  Let's see what's left of American politics after that -- Democrat or Republican. 
 it were applied universally, the U.S. political field on both sides would be scorched earth.

Honestly I'm moving in this direction already, and it has a lot to do with Netanyahu being a massive, massive slimeball, and actively attempting to affect the outcome of elections. I think he may end up doing more to damage to the longterm US-Isreali relationship than all the other Israeli controversies ever have.

[SalmonGod]

Though it did occur to me, @SG, that if you swapped state actors to israel, while there'd be a lot more eggshell walking due to the issues involved with not tripping over enough dog whistles to wake up every canine in a fifty mile radius, you'd probably have about as much (or more, given the anti-semitism angle some fucks in this country would salivate over) shit flipping.

This isn't a matter of just influence -- we have official routes for that sort of thing, after all, and while people get concerned it's usually relatively low key -- but rather how it was peddled. I don't think it would matter who it was if another state pulled the shit Russia has over the last few years, people would be pretty pissed if it came to light. This shit wasn't just influence, there's been no small amount of outright criminal behavior going on related to it.

Blind subservience to Israel has been pretty blatant for a long damn time, refusing to recognize or condemn their continual human rights abuses, and enabling them with billions of dollars in military aid every year. 

And there's investigative reporting on it too with plenty of evidence of shady shit... but the same outrage isn't there, imo, because it's not partisan.

We'll fly into hysteria over how russia might have had some influence in the election of Trump.  We'll call for Assange's blood to the point of supporting USA's international overreach and gross distortion of the details of his legal situation (i.e. apparently it's ok to use feminist issues as an excuse to initiate arrest and then deny the women involved justice, which was obvious going to happen from the beginning and now pretty well vindicated as factually the plan from the start).  We'll ignore the immediate brazen admittance by authorities that they've been lying to us for 7 years about their motives on him, and disregard whether the stuff he published was actually true and we deserved to know.  All because I guess because he got the information he published from a foreign intelligence agency?

But there's no hysteria over foreign government meddling when the establishment Democrats who lost to Trump will universally condemn one of their own (Omar) for daring to comment on Israel.

We'll scarcely do more than shake our heads at American journalists (other than Fox) when they betray the people by meekly acting as state or corporate mouthpieces.  I guess it's not as bad to publish news harmful to the public, even blatantly false narratives, so long as the content comes from a domestic source instead of foreign?

[smjjames]

Some warning: the following remarks are being made late at night, so I cannot speak towards my state of mind as I make them.


I recall, at least back in the day, that the main Republican refrain was to "shrink the government", if you will. One of the policies enacted back in this Reagan-era perspective (though Reagan himself recanted eventually; the party did not) was that taxes should be painful. Zoom forward to the present day, and we have Gingrich-style "boil everything down into tribalism" and having every action have the goal to "win" rather than make any meaningful change. Everyone on both sides are getting utterly exhausted and just want the whole thing to go away.

Perhaps that's the point?

Now, that's not to say that the people currently in the public eye necessarily have this in mind- this is more of a party mechanism sort of thing. The idea of accelerationism has been brought up before, but this isn't quite that. Accelerationism is about trying to hasten change regarded as "negative" to drive a system to its (hopefully) inevitable conclusion, which is regarded as better than the current state of affairs. This seems to be a different concept, embodied by that policy on taxation- make the government as toxic as possible, in the hopes that it drives people to deprive as much power as they can from it just to try and make it "go away". It's a win-win for Republicans- they get to "own the libs" along the way, and get the government they want in the end. Sure, it requires letting someone like Trump end up as president, but it seems pretty damn clear that no one seems to mind- the ends justify the means here, as far as they're concerned. Hell, even the means are proving beneficial, if this perspective is taken.

Hell, a lot of their actions make sense in that regard. They take actions to make people hate the government because that's their underlying goal- they want people to hate the government. That has been the Republican party line since Reagan, if not earlier. Obstruct the process as much as possible on every level to deliberately slow down the gears of government in the hopes that people give up and give more and more authority to local government. While obviously not every Republican member in Congress is necessarily aware of this, those that aren't are filling the role perfectly well. In that regard, people like McConnell aren't in power for their ability to lead, but their ability to obstruct and place blame on the entire institution while doing so. It's not a perfect strategy- their approach on healthcare was an absolute blunder, since they drove up support for the damn thing- but it does seem to be working overall.

So, one could summarize the current Republican strategy as polarizing the ends, hollowing out the middle, and hoping the whole thing collapses in on itself and local institutions rise up in their place.

It's worth noting that I do not agree with this goal. Just stating why I'm starting to think that it is their goal.

What kind of local institutions do they expect to rise up in their place? If we’re talking about political institutions, we’re talking about ‘third parties’, and they’d have to actually let said local (or grassroots, which is often but not always synonymous with local) institutions  rise up in the first place if that was their intention. However, they aren’t doing so because they don’t want to give a nanometer of ground to the Democrats (and likewise for the Democrats towards the Republicans).

Or I guess they could mean state level institutions, but there are some things that can only be done at the federal level, obstructing those won’t give state level institutions the ability. Not without altering the constitution.

[Trolldefender99]

While not really an US event, there were people from the US (and Australia) that got killed.

But I'm sure everyones heard by now the massive terrorist attack in Sri Lanka. Quite a lot killed and even more injured. Sad thing to read on what is supposed to be a day for Christians/Catholics to celebrate Easter

[Folly]

But I'm sure everyones heard by now the massive terrorist attack in Sri Lanka.

It happened like an hour ago, and you're the first person to mention it on these forums. I'm sure many have not heard before now.


Meanwhile, a bit closer to home, the Trump team are all over the map in response to the Mueller report. On the one hand, it's a strong report that completely vindicates Trump and proves he is completely innocent of all wrongdoing. On the other hand, it's an illegal investigation full of lies started by liberal devils. And on the other other hand, anything that actually is true is not illegal and Obama did it first anyway. It seems like they are just throwing out every variety of spin they can think of and hoping that something sticks.

[Trolldefender99]

But I'm sure everyones heard by now the massive terrorist attack in Sri Lanka.

It happened like an hour ago, and you're the first person to mention it on these forums. I'm sure many have not heard before now.

True. Bad assumption on mine. And not everyone browses news sites or watches the news

Still, pretty terrible thing to happen. I'm guessing it was picked today for the attack just because its associated with Easter (hence why churches were targeted alongside hotels) and they wanted to make the biggest impact with long lasting effects. Pretty big coincidence to pick today of all days to do an attack. In any case, no matter the reason, hope it brings people together then make people fearful

[Il Palazzo]

It happened like an hour ago

It's been like 17 hours.

[Folly]

In any case, no matter the reason, hope it brings people together then make people fearful

I hope it opens people's eyes to the fact their imaginary friend is never going to intercede on their behalf no matter what horrible things may come at them, and convince them that they need to stop praying and start acting to actually make the world a better place.

But realistically no, they'll probably just do that stuff you said.

[bloop_bleep]

Uh... these people’s relatives were just killed. Maybe hold off on the “Christians are clearly gullible idiots” rhetoric for this moment?

[Folly]

Uh... these people’s relatives were just killed. Maybe hold off on the “Christians are clearly gullible idiots” rhetoric for this moment?

Sure, we'll just table that discussion until sometime after we talk about gun control. Have the families of the mass shooting victims calmed down enough for us to talk about that yet?