edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 03:06 pm
@hightor,
Not disagreeing that there is disinformation out there.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 03:12 pm
@edgar
You said above that you do not disagree with the claims that Russian disinformation campaigns, designed to damage western democratic nation's alliances including within the US are operational.

If so, how do you see it operating within the US? What has it been up to? To what ends? It's main tools, as we now know, are predominantly used within social media.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 04:41 pm
@blatham,
Election meddling goes hand-in-hand with disinformation. Both activities subvert public trust in the two of the most hallowed institutions of liberal democracies — freedom of speech and fair elections. If someone can cite evidence that Russian operatives didn't attempt to penetrate U.S. election databases in 2016 — and succeed in a few cases — please provide us with an explanation.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 04:50 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

USA Today:
Spike Lee endorses Bernie Sanders: He’ll ‘do the right thing’


Unless you have a secret source, the last time Spike Lee endorsed Bernie was in 2016. Not saying he won’t endorse him again in 2020, but it’s disingenuous to pretend his comments in USA Today are current.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 04:59 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
subvert public trust in the two of the most hallowed institutions of liberal democracies
Indeed. And I suppose we ought to note that this is now also a a fundamental project of the political right in the US. Describe such institutions as "the enemy".
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 05:38 pm
@blatham,
Laughing Are you actually suggesting that Democrats haven't bee doing exactly the same thing for the past three years?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 06:09 pm
@blatham,
It's so obvious that Russia and many developed nations are busy attempting to influence the internal workings of every other country it has dealing with. None more so than the Us and China and Russia. I never said otherwise. I said that Russia plants its misinformation any place it can make it fit. They want to influence centrists, progressives and regressives. I'm just objecting to the notion that without Russian propaganda Bernie's supporters would behave differently. None that I have interacted with would cease to believe that centrist Democrats are anti progressive values and a menace to our continued existence as a democracy. They are bought and paid for. The Republicans are many times worse, but centrist Dems are enablers and are only giving lip service to social progress. And they are by and large neocons in foreign affairs.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 06:11 pm
@georgeob1,
Here we are with conservatism plus speaking out against freedom again.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 05:01 am
@georgeob1,
Yes. Nice catch.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 05:14 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I'm just objecting to the notion that without Russian propaganda Bernie's supporters would behave differently. None that I have interacted with would cease to believe that centrist Democrats are anti progressive values and a menace to our continued existence as a democracy.
What if the propaganda initiatives were directed so as to encourage such negative views about Dems? That is what they are up to, right?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 07:18 am
AshleyStevens
@The_Acumen
·
39m
Rich people aren't against Socialism. They love that ****. The tax cuts, the govt subsidies, etc is ambrosia. The truth is they hate socialism for us poors.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 07:34 am
@edgarblythe,
That is so. "Redistribution of wealth" can also be understood as a facet of the redistribution of power. Those who have it are often unwilling to share it.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 08:45 am
@edgarblythe,
I agree with you to the extent you mentioned. However, it is the more extreme rumors and salacious propaganda which affected some of the more extremes views from Bernie's supporters of which we are talking about. Also, they had an interest in keeping the email thing alive with those extreme supporters as well. Not to mention the whole thing with the claiming the DNC hack was an inside job rather than a Russian hack.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 05:41 pm
The Great Battle for the soul of America is beginning in earnest. Choose your side.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/07/bernie-sanders-corporate-donations-dnc-036157?__twitter_impression=true

Sanders unveils plan to stop corporate donations to Dem convention
The announcement could reignite tensions between the DNC and his campaign.
Bernie Sanders
Sen. Bernie Sanders. | Cheryl Senter/AP Photo

By HOLLY OTTERBEIN
10/07/2019 06:01 AM EDT

Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan would eliminate private insurance
See where he stands on all the issues »
Bernie Sanders, a longtime critic of the nation’s campaign finance system, is releasing a plan Monday aimed at ending the influence of corporate cash in politics, including at the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

The Vermont senator pledges to put a stop to all corporate PAC contributions to the convention if he wins the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. AT&T, Facebook, Independence Blue Cross and other companies each gave seven-figure donations to the event’s host committee in 2016.

Sanders’ plan states that corporate lobbyists “were everywhere and filled the VIP suites” at the convention, adding that “this type of corporate sponsorship is a corrupting influence and must end if politicians are going to represent the American people.” His proposal also calls for a lifetime lobbying ban on Democratic National Committee chairs and co-chairs, as well as a prohibition on them working for companies that hold federal contracts or are trying to obtain government approval for mergers or other projects.

“Our grassroots-funded campaign is proving every single day that you don’t need billionaires and private fundraisers to run for president,” Sanders said in a statement. “We’ve received more contributions from more individual contributors than any campaign in the history of American politics because we understand the basic reality that you can’t take on a corrupt system if you take its money.”

Sanders’ policy comes days after he was released from the hospital following a heart attack. His team has sought to project a business-as-usual tone, with two of his campaign co-chairs, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz of San Juan, Puerto Rico, stumping for Sanders over the weekend in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Sanders’ platform against corporate money also puts a spotlight on the candidate’s fundraising operation, which is powered almost exclusively by small-dollar donors. Sanders raised $25.3 million in the third quarter of the year, more than any other Democratic presidential candidate, but that news has been subsumed somewhat by his health scare.

In addition to trying to change the way the convention is funded, Sanders’ plan also seeks to bar corporate contributions for inaugural events and limit individual donations to $500 apiece.

Sanders’ policy puts the DNC in a difficult situation, and could potentially reignite tensions between the party organization and his campaign. DNC officials went to K Street last month to explain how corporations could contribute to the 2020 convention, which will be held in Milwaukee. Some lobbyists have been concerned that a candidate such as Sanders or Elizabeth Warren may try to halt corporate donations if they receive the party’s nomination.

Convention CEO Joe Solmonese said at the time that the DNC is not expecting to return any contributions, no matter who wins the primary. It is unclear how the Sanders team would address such a situation, or what would happen during a brokered convention, but the campaign is adamant that it would not allow any corporate funding for the event.

“Bernie Sanders fights for the people, cannot be bought and is under no obligation to fulfill any transaction with a corporation trying to corruptly buy access,” said Josh Orton, Sanders’ national policy director. “A Bernie Sanders convention will be a people-powered convention.”

Sanders also vows in his proposal to try to pass a constitutional amendment “that makes clear that money is not speech and corporations are not people,” and replace what his campaign calls the “worthless” Federal Election Commission with a Federal Election Administration proposed by former Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold. He wants to pass public-financing laws for all federal elections, and allow voters to use “universal small-dollar vouchers” to donate to candidates as well. Several of Sanders’ proposals would require congressional approval.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 06:46 pm
From Steve Benen at the Maddow blog
Quote:
* Late Friday afternoon, Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign said the Vermonter was hospitalized following a heart attack in Las Vegas last week. There is no reason to believe this will derail the 78-year-old senator's presidential campaign, though he is now at home recuperating.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 06:56 pm
From Ed Kilgore, NYMag

Quote:
The Emerging Anybody-But-Warren Campaign

The recent, steady rise of Elizabeth Warren’s presidential candidacy has obviously changed the dynamics of the 2020 Democratic nomination contest. While her strong favorability rating among Democrats has unsurprisingly paralleled her enhanced levels of support as a first-choice candidate, nagging doubts remain about her “electability” — despite the fact that she is routinely leading Trump in general-election trial-heat polls. Some of it undoubtedly flows from the unproven but widespread belief that Americans (usually other Americans, not poll respondents themselves) “aren’t ready” for a woman as president. There are also various concerns arising from Warren’s standing in her home state of Massachusetts — or even from the identity of her home state, which produced presidential-general-election losers in 1988, 2004, and 2012. Some observers even think the vastly overblown “scandal” over Warren once identifying in an academic directory as Native American — the source of the endless Trumpian “Pocahontas” taunt — is a much bigger deal than any rational assessment would suggest.

But the problem with Warren that we are beginning to hear about most frequently is the claim that she’s just “too liberal” or “too far left” for otherwise persuadable voters (or donors) to countenance. Thus, in theory, she will lose swing voters that, say, Joe Biden might win, in part because her anti-corporate rhetoric and progressive policy positions will play into the Trump campaign’s clearly planned message that Democrats are all godless, baby-killing, America-hating socialists.

Where is this argument coming from, if Warren is leading Trump in trial heats and becoming steadily more popular? Pretty clearly, corporate voices from Wall Street to Silicon Valley are taking the lead in demonizing her, for good reason: She’s a threat to their bottom lines and their all-but-sovereign business practices. As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, the drumbeat of warnings about Warren is getting louder, and emanates from separate sectors prone to different ideological tendencies. That became clear when leaked audio revealed Mark Zuckerberg’s fears about the candidate who has called for breaking up Facebook:
Quote:
Mr. Zuckerberg and his peers running Silicon Valley’s megafirms aren’t the only executives feeling a bit uneasy about a White House potentially occupied by Ms. Warren …

Multiple polls indicate Ms. Warren’s campaign is gaining traction, and that momentum has wealthy donors warning the Democratic party her nomination would prompt them to leave their wallets in their pockets. Many of those wallets belong to company owners, influential shareholders, top executives and board members.

Ed Mills, Washington policy analyst for Raymond James Financial Inc., told me this week the changing dynamics in the election was a dominant topic in recent days. “I had many more conversations about Elizabeth Warren in the last week than I did about impeachment.”

And the emerging claim is that the very act of electing Warren could be a calamity:
Quote:
Lori Calvasina, RBC Capital Markets’s head of U.S. equities strategy, said recent jitters in the stock market indicate investors are showing concern about a Warren presidency and its potential impact on markets. “People are starting to wake up to the risk” she said. As shareholders — including major institutional investors — express concern, top executives will be pressed to demonstrate they aren’t asleep at the wheel.

There are even not-so-veiled threats from investor types that they will tank the economy if voters insult them by electing Warren:
Quote:
At the Delivering Alpha conference this week, [Omega Advisors CEO Leon] Cooperman sounded the alarm about a Warren win by saying “There’s unquestionably a shift to the left in this country,” and adding “They won’t open the stock market if Elizabeth Warren is the next president.”

n a later CNBC interview, he revised his panic down only slightly, predicting that a Warren presidency would result in a catastrophic drop in the stock market.

In a parallel development to the prospective revolt of the capitalists against Warren, those purporting to represent the #NeverTrump faction of alienated Republicans are beginning to let it be known that their willingness to support a Democrat in order to defenestrate President Trump and take back their party is strictly conditional on the ideology of the nominee, with Warren being beyond the pale. David Drucker reported on this phenomenon last week:
Prominent Never Trump Republicans insist they would never back rising Democratic contender Elizabeth Warren, describing an election that pits the liberal Massachusetts senator against a president they despise as a choice between two unacceptable options.
Quote:
A few Republicans opposed to Trump are prepared to support Warren if she emerges as the only viable challenger, affirming a commitment to topple the president at all costs. But for many well-known Republicans and unaligned political operatives inside the community of conservative Trump opponents, there are limits. Joe Biden, the former vice president, is a traditional labor Democrat they can stomach and even promote for. Warren is another matter, at least as they see things now …

“There is no universe where I will ever vote for Donald Trump and there is no universe where I could ever vote for Elizabeth Warren,” said Jennifer Horn, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. “If Democrats really care about mending our nation, they shouldn’t be looking at the most far-Left people.”

Some #NeverTrump types are orthodox business conservatives who deplore Trumpian “populism,” and want a safe-and-sound non-populist Democrat who will return the political system to the pre-Trump status quo ante, which happens to be the basic rationale of Joe Biden’s candidacy.

So taken together, a powerful elite coalition of non-Democrats and at best quasi-Democrats is telling Democrats they cannot choose Warren because if that happens they will (a) destroy the economy and/or (b) throw the election to Trump.

The thing to watch going forward is whether Warren’s Democratic rivals begin to explicitly refer to these concerns as reasons not to nominate her, and tie their individual campaigns to an Anybody-But-Warren campaign. The fear that Warren’s (and Bernie Sanders’s) policy positions are not in line with the views of the general electorate is hardly a new one, as my colleague Jonathan Chait observed last month:
Quote:
[S]he has spent most of the last year positioning herself as if the general election will never happen. At the moment, I’d feel very nervous betting the future of American democracy on Warren’s ability to defeat Trump.

The question is how Democrats measure the risk associated with a Warren nomination. There are objective measurements, including polling and sober analysis of how the 2020 general election is developing. And then there are protestations by business elites and their friends that purport to represent public opinion but seem more than a tad self-interested. Elizabeth Warren is going to point that out early and often, as one investment adviser noted:
Quote:
“The more that folks in power come out against Warren, the more power she gets,” [Ed] Mills [of Raymond James Financial, Inc.] said. “When Wall Street mega donors say ‘anybody but her,’ that’s free advertising.”

These birds are smart enough to try to throw their voices like ventriloquists and claim that regular folks share their fears about Warren and “populism.” So there could be a lot of shadowboxing if and when Warren emerges as the Democratic front-runner.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 07:06 pm
@blatham,
As was detailed in another post a day or two ago, the Koch crowd are now working to pull in the big tech companies, such as Facebook, into their fold. Putting faith in Zuckerberg to do the right thing would not be wise.

I suppose I ought to add the obvious - as Warren's numbers rise, to that degree the bad guys will attack her. These will be the big money boys as well as the entire right wing media universe.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 09:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
The Republicans are many times worse

This is where I agree with you 100 percent.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 10:17 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
It’s so easy to do.
Criticize Trump

1. Yes, criticizing Trump is easy to do, because everyday he does or say something that warrants such criticism.

2. It is easy to criticize Trump due to his actions and his words.

3. Donald Trump is a horrible despicable person.

4. Donald Trump is a pathological and habitual liar.

5. Donald Trump is divisive, hateful, and racist to his core.

6. Donald Trump is a dictator and authoritarian to his core.

7. Donald Trump proudly sees himself as a crime boss and a tyrant.

8. Donald Trump also admires and adores other tyrants and crime bosses.

9. Donald Trump cares nothing about American values.

10. Donald Trump cares nothing about poor people.

11. Donald Trump cares nothing about the middle class.

12. Donald Trump cares nothing about the environment, the EPA, or our planet.

13. Donald Trump cares nothing about America's allies.

14. Donald Trump cares nothing about America's national security.

15. Donald Trump cares nothing about the national security of America's allies.

16. Donald Trump has no honor.

17. Donald Trump has no empathy.

18. Donald Trump has no compassion.

19. Donald Trump has no integrity.

20. Donald Trump has absolutely no moral values.

21. Donald Trump is a scandalous con-artist.

22. Donald Trump is Fake news.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 04:32 am
@Lash,
Quote:
You see the footage on ABC.

Yup. It was a legitimate news story.
Quote:
You see the other footage.

Yup.
Quote:
Pretending it’s doctored is defending her.

I'm specifically referring to the clips which were obviously manipulated to make her appear drunk or seriously ill. This was done by slowing the video down and repeating certain segments — they were all over YouTube.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:54:32