[jjbrr]

link
link
link

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-09, 00:46, said:

Aside from the speculation in The Daily Beast story, has there been any official confirmation of this specific Russia connection yet?

A good question, I gather the answer is yes. Anyway, I want to look at a larger problem.

From The Daily Beast story:

Quote

These are a sample of the videos put together by two black video bloggers calling themselves Williams and Kalvin Johnson, whose social media pages investigators say are part of the broad Russian campaign to influence American politics. Across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, they purported to offer "a word of truth" to African-American audiences."We, the black people, we stand in one unity. We stand in one to say that Hillary Clinton is not our candidate," one of the men says in a November video that warned Clinton "is going to stand for the Muslim. We don't stand for her."

We appear to be entering a dangerous period. As bad as this is, we have to see that it is not just the last election and it is not just the Russians. Such a video could have been financed by people born and raised in the U.S. and could be in pursuit of various purposes. I have not watched the video and do not intend to. The description is enough, moreover I think caution is useful when using a computer to watch trash.

At 78 I am of course not young, but it is only in the last couple of years that I have been feeling a bit out of touch with the world. Some things are minor. We are going on a trip soon, and I have been told that I will no longer be able to pre-print my boarding pass, rather I will have to download it onto my smartphone. Ok, I guess I can learn how to do that, that's minor. But watching the growing influence of Facebook, Twitter, and so on is becoming worrisome. There are and always have been trashy tabloids with breathtaking stories about actors, actresses and such, often people that I have never heard of. People buy them, I don't, that's that. And it's stupid stuff about unimportant people. What we have here, with the video and with many other postings, is stupid stuff about important people and important events. People read/watch/experience this trash and, worse, they take it seriously.

I have a Facebook account. I never use it. I don't post things on FB and, unless Becky shows me something of interest, I don't read what others post. I have never Tweeted. I don't text on my smartphone, I prefer speaking. I post here and often learn something by reading what is posted here, but still I really do prefer talking directly to people.

There has always been craziness. There was, I guess there still is, the John Birch Society. There were supposedly Communists everywhere. There was training for what to do in a nuclear attack: Get down on the floor, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye. So craziness is not new in this country and I doubt we here are unique. But Facebook, Twitter and all seem to be making idiocy mainstream. This is not good. As a society, we need to find a solution. I do not think government can solve this, we correctly value the free expression of ideas. Government has a role in the worst cases. Russian financing of propaganda such as above should be dealt with. But I seriously doubt that government action will be the solution to the larger problem. Only society as a whole can really deal with this. We decide that we value truth, that we respect others whether or not we agree with them, and that we hope to solve problems in a cooperative manner, or we decide otherwise.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-October-09, 08:05, said:

A good question, I gather the answer is yes. Anyway, I want to look at a larger problem.

From The Daily Beast story:


We appear to be entering a dangerous period. As bad as this is, we have to see that it is not just the last election and it is not just the Russians. Such a video could have been financed by people born and raised in the U.S. and could be in pursuit of various purposes. I have not watched the video and do not intend to. The description is enough, moreover I think caution is useful when using a computer to watch trash.

At 78 I am of course not young, but it is only in the last couple of years that I have been feeling a bit out of touch with the world. Some things are minor. We are going on a trip soon, and I have been told that I will no longer be able to pre-print my boarding pass, rather I will have to download it onto my smartphone. Ok, I guess I can learn how to do that, that's minor. But watching the growing influence of Facebook, Twitter, and so on is becoming worrisome. There are and always have been trashy tabloids with breathtaking stories about actors, actresses and such, often people that I have never heard of. People buy them, I don't, that's that. And it's stupid stuff about unimportant people. What we have here, with the video and with many other postings, is stupid stuff about important people and important events. People read/watch/experience this trash and, worse, they take it seriously.

I have a Facebook account. I never use it. I don't post things on FB and, unless Becky shows me something of interest, I don't read what others post. I have never Tweeted. I don't text on my smartphone, I prefer speaking. I post here and often learn something by reading what is posted here, but still I really do prefer talking directly to people.

There has always been craziness. There was, I guess there still is, the John Birch Society. There were supposedly Communists everywhere. There was training for what to do in a nuclear attack: Get down on the floor, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye. So craziness is not new in this country and I doubt we here are unique. But Facebook, Twitter and all seem to be making idiocy mainstream. This is not good. As a society, we need to find a solution. I do not think government can solve this, we correctly value the free expression of ideas. Government has a role in the worst cases. Russian financing of propaganda such as above should be dealt with. But I seriously doubt that government action will be the solution to the larger problem. Only society as a whole can really deal with this. We decide that we value truth, that we respect others whether or not we agree with them, and that we hope to solve problems in a cooperative manner, or we decide otherwise.

Ken, sometimes I think you must be related to Samuel Clemens for your ability to express elegant thinking in simple terms.

It appears to me that we have reached a genuine crossroads period in our country where those we used to label as "looney tunes" have gained enough traction to be a force - and now they have helped elect a president who is actively gaslighting in order to "prove" to them that their loyalty was not misplaced.

I fear that this is a trend rather than an aberration, and that makes 2018 and 2020 critical to stopping the trend before it is too late for all of us.

[barmar]

Businessmen can't be racists? So all the "whites only" restaurants in Jim Crow era were not racist? Or they weren't businesses?

Many businessmen are willing to give up the profits from sales that go against their prejudices. Back then it was racism, now we have bakers who don't want to make cakes for same-sex marriages.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-October-09, 09:44, said:

Businessmen can't be racists? So all the "whites only" restaurants in Jim Crow era were not racist? Or they weren't businesses?

Many businessmen are willing to give up the profits from sales that go against their prejudices. Back then it was racism, now we have bakers who don't want to make cakes for same-sex marriages.

You have to take into account the purpose of these claims. They are not intended to withstand scrutiny or reasoned debate but to elicit an unthinking nod from whomever is listening and watching. The claims don't have to be accurate to be successful; they only need to sound genuine-enough to obfuscate reality.

[Zelandakh]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-09, 08:02, said:

link
link
link

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-09, 11:58, said:

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

I agree. In a way, this goes along with what i was saying. Even if it turns out that the Russians did do this specific attack, it might have been anyone and in the future it will be others.

In fact it could be difficult to trace just how this came about unless, and perhaps even if, you have considerable legal powers. Presumably people got paid. Even that requires some sort of investigative authority. Tracking the source? Not easy, I imagine.

The whole thing is a serious mess.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-09, 11:58, said:

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

Here is the link to the Daily Beast article. As you will see, it is marked as an "exclusive". Thus far, I have seen no other comfirmation of this story. That could change later today or never. We will have to wait and see.

[Winstonm]

This from Politico is eye-opening.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-09, 11:58, said:

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

You might be interested to know that MSNBC tonight broadcast one of the "Williams and Kalvin" ads and reported that it had been taken down by youtube(google) in August 2016 because it was found to be connected to Russia.

And there is also this.

[kenberg]

A little morning humor

https://www.washingt...m=.c229c4a61b60

[Winstonm]

https://finance.yaho...-015142562.html

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli intelligence officials spying on Russian government hackers found they were using Kaspersky Lab antivirus software that is also used by 400 million people globally, including U.S. government agencies, according to media reports on Tuesday.

I guess Kaspersky is the name of that 400 pound guy sitting on his bed.

[y66]

What can Dems do? Good review of the bidding here by Thomas Edsall. Excerpts:

Quote

The greatest threat to the next Democratic nominee for President isn’t white working class voters, but in fact our inability to cobble back and hold together the core of Obama’s back to back majority coalitions. The “protest vote” by millennials — HRC’s significant underperformance with younger voters, particularly younger voters of color — is actually where she was most notably off of Obama’s performance in the overall battleground aggregate.

when you have between 6 to 9 percent of younger voters of color breaking 3rd Party in their ‘protest vote’ that kills the Democrat’s chance to reach Obama’s margins most notably in places like Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin.

When Trump stands up in front of his audience at rallies during the campaign and tells them he’s going to give them their country back, Trump is having a conversation about race. Our response is that we are going to raise the minimum wage — we are having a conversation about economics. We are playing checkers while Trump is playing chess. And he continues to do so as he focuses on things like Black N.F.L. players taking a knee. Until Democrats can inoculate against some of the heightened angst, most prominently found among blue collar whites, about the changing face of America, they will struggle to compete for white non-college voters.

Heightened tribal polarization is the primary hurdle to Democrats’ ability to better compete and win white non-college voters. Avoiding that conversation isn’t going to work. We can’t solve for that angst with a promise to simply help make college more affordable. Until we can better engage these voters in a conversation that lessens their very real angst about the changes that are happening in the country and pivot to a compelling narrative about how we all win the future together or divided we will certainly lose it to our competitors, Democrats will struggle mightily to compete for white non-college voters broadly and particularly in The South.

Still struggling mightily to compete for white non-college voters? Shakes head.

[Winstonm]

If you don't think Trump allows spite about Obama to guide his actions, read what his own advisers say about the Iran deal:

Quote

The solution is a compromise that retains the agreement but also puts Iran and U.S. allies on notice that Trump is willing to walk away. Meanwhile, Trump is likely to make the case that as the Islamic State terrorist group is weakened, Iran is reasserting itself as the most destructive influence in the Middle East and using the nuclear deal as cover to do so.

“He doesn’t want to certify the Iran deal for more domestic reasons than international ones,” said Vali Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “He doesn’t want to certify that any piece of the Obama strategy is working.”

Doesn't matter what is good for the country or world, only how can Trump get spiteful revenge on the black guy who humiliated him at a dinner.

[Kaitlyn S]

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy.

Anyway:

A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America
by Ashley Johnson

A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist.

Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn’t be equally incensed if those players were white?

Many of the persons sharing this post are highly intelligent people. Do they really think it’s racism when someone disagrees with a black person because he is black? If one would take issue with the same idea if the protester was white, calling the act of disagreement racism is disingenuous at best.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with those angry with the NFL protesters, in fact, I would take no issue with them saying the “boycott the NFL” crowd is wrong; indeed it is easy to support the argument that the protesters are invoking their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and air their grievances.

However, there is a difference between calling someone wrong and accusing them of racism – one implies being human and the other connotes evil.

Calling this racism demeans the word, letting real racists get away with blatant racist acts by lumping them in with normal proud Americans. After all, if you call me a racist, I’ll probably ignore you when you correctly use the term.

If any intelligent person thought for a moment before sharing this post, he would have realized that he was propagating an incorrect notion. This didn’t happen, so it can only be assumed that the posters did it out of habit, like washing their hands after using the loo. How has it become second nature for otherwise smart people to use the term racist in such a senseless manner, essentially using the label on anybody that disagrees with current liberal thinking?

Modern liberals are acting as if in a hypnotized trance when using the term. They certainly aren’t thinking when utilizing it. It is a sad commentary on our nation when so many of our youth are hypnotized and not using their brains. Who is hypnotizing them? And what is their motive? This would be the time for all liberals to start thinking critically and searching their soul for the answers to those two questions. For whatever the motive is, the force that is causing young Americans to stop thinking has to be evil.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-12, 15:09, said:

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy.

Anyway:

A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America
by Ashley Johnson

A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist.

Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn’t be equally incensed if those players were white?

Many of the persons sharing this post are highly intelligent people. Do they really think it’s racism when someone disagrees with a black person because he is black? If one would take issue with the same idea if the protester was white, calling the act of disagreement racism is disingenuous at best.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with those angry with the NFL protesters, in fact, I would take no issue with them saying the “boycott the NFL” crowd is wrong; indeed it is easy to support the argument that the protesters are invoking their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and air their grievances.

However, there is a difference between calling someone wrong and accusing them of racism – one implies being human and the other connotes evil.

Calling this racism demeans the word, letting real racists get away with blatant racist acts by lumping them in with normal proud Americans. After all, if you call me a racist, I’ll probably ignore you when you correctly use the term.

If any intelligent person thought for a moment before sharing this post, he would have realized that he was propagating an incorrect notion. This didn’t happen, so it can only be assumed that the posters did it out of habit, like washing their hands after using the loo. How has it become second nature for otherwise smart people to use the term racist in such a senseless manner, essentially using the label on anybody that disagrees with current liberal thinking?

Modern liberals are acting as if in a hypnotized trance when using the term. They certainly aren’t thinking when utilizing it. It is a sad commentary on our nation when so many of our youth are hypnotized and not using their brains. Who is hypnotizing them? And what is their motive? This would be the time for all liberals to start thinking critically and searching their soul for the answers to those two questions. For whatever the motive is, the force that is causing young Americans to stop thinking has to be evil.

The true Scotsman fallacy (I'm not a real racist because I don't wear a white sheet) does not make for a convincing argument

I think this is a matter of terms and perception. Many people do not consider themselves "racists" although they agree with the precepts of those who espouse the ideas based on "white privilege". Personally, I think it is tick-tack, that racism is a broad term that encompasses many shades from the extremist KKK members to those people who believe that Mexicans are "good people" as long as "they stay in their neighborhoods", and the like.

White supremacist, white nationalist, alt-right, white privilege, and Christian Right are all categories of racism that less overt racists find being branded as more comfortable, a rationalization for deeply held bias. Note, racism is not a bias simply against black-skinned people; racism is a bias against those who are not like us, whoever "us" happens to be. To be fair, in many cases the bias is innate and not easily recognized within oneself.

This is one of the problems with the liberal message: it is not easily consolidated to a bumper sticker. It requires explanation and thinking.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-12, 15:09, said:

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy.

Anyway:

A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America
by Ashley Johnson

A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist.

Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn't be equally incensed if those players were white?

Rest deleted

This is a strange post, I think. At least it is hard to respond to.

We have Kaitlyn, quoting Ashley Johnson, who refers to a Facebook posting that is "making the rounds",, but that I haven't seen, saying that someone, who knows who, has called someone else a racist. So what do I think of that? What can I say? I don't think the article is very deep, but that's probably not the point of the question. Generally I am not much into name calling, but I am not sure that is what you have in mind either. Although I do admit to having said some unkind words about Facebook.

[hrothgar]

Greetings from yunnan

Wrt kaitlyn's post

Without going into specifics

1. Based on kaitlyn's own postings I am quite sure that she is a dyed in the wool racist

2. Based on here own postings she dislikes being confronted with this fact

3. I dont find irsurprising that other racist whites dilike hearing the same

As to the actual posting, I don't recall hearing an enormous hue and cry about whites opposing these protests as being racist; rather I have heard lots of folks saying that they are very wrong

[awm]

Suppose that a group of white players chose to kneel for the anthem. Their explanation:

“The America I know and love has ceded its sovereignty by agreeing to trade deals like NAFTA and by allowing so many illegal immigrants into the country. Our country’s greatness has been badly hurt, and so I kneel for America just as I would for an injured teammate, in the hope that she will someday recover and become Great Again”

Would the people objecting to the protest of black players similarly object to such a protest by white players? I very much doubt it!

The conclusion is that the objection is not really about kneeling during the anthem — it is about the reason they are kneeling. Basically the objection is that we ought not to care that unarmed black people are being shot by police, or at least we ought not to have to think about it when we’d rather be distracted by football. If this is not actual racism, it is at least a refusal to confront racism — essentially saying “that’s not my problem, I don’t want to hear about it, shut up and entertain me.”

When the KKK was out lynching people, there were a lot of white folks who weren’t in the KKK... but didn’t object, didn’t do anything about it, and were annoyed when black people (and some non-black allies) were marching because the marches were “disturbing the peace” and forcing them to confront an uncomfortable situation that they’d rather write off as “not my problem.” Were those white people racist?

It is all a matter of degree, I guess.

[cherdano]

In the world I grew up in, kneeling was considered the single most respectful gesture. That's why we kneel in church, or in front of the pope or the king. Why is it suddenly considered "disrespecting the flag" when African-American players do it?

The Vice President of the USA attended an NFL game (flying out there from the West Coast and back) just in order to be able to leave after some players kneeled during the anthem. In other words, he used the anthem as prop for a political stunt. Isn't this disrespecting the anthem? Why should an old white powerful guy be allowed to use the anthem to stage a protest, but not young African-Americans?

I am not saying everyone who got outraged by Kaepernick and not outraged by Pence is a racist. But it is sure as hell quite difficult to explain your thinking without assuming some form of racial bias...

Btw Kaitlyn, still proud of your vote for the temper-throwing toddler in the White House? Whose aides have to find a way to save the Iran deal while giving the toddler the feeling that he did his part in destroying it? Who, after he didn't get his way on Obamacare repeal, is now sabotaging the law in order to raise premiums for millions, while increasing federal spending and covering fewer people?

Oh right I forgot, in your world everything Obama did is the work of the devil, hence everything Trump does out of spite to Obama you will proudly applaud.