A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:38 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yLx_wDq1Wo

Pretty good debate between Greenwald and Johnston.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:03 pm

I'm reading A Crisis Wasted by Reed Hundt so I'm not feeling a lot of nostalgia for the Obama years at the moment. if it came down to Biden and Trump (or Pence) I'd still vote for Biden 'cause I'm not an accelerationist but I'd like to think this primary will yield something different.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:41 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:03 pm
an accelerationist
Is this supposed to be like some anarchist form of Klein's "Shock Doctrine"? Should we expect this to somehow achieve better results than that?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:47 pm

In the daily drum of Trump indignation, I'm not sure if any story will upset me more than his jeopardizing the UN sexual violence resolution over the possibility that some women may want to abort their conquest-babies.

Oh, well maybe also the thing where Trump has threatened to overturn that part of Obamacare that won't allow hyperpious medical professionals to deny care to those sinful women who have had abortions.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:49 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:41 pm
Is this supposed to be like some anarchist form of Klein's "Shock Doctrine"?
I think so? but also doing things to let the bad stuff happen on purpose. like not voting for Trump's main opponent so he has a better chance to getting a second term. (I assume anyone who thinks that is a genuinely good idea is at least white)

regardless, I'm curious as to what theories Biden has as to why Trump won/Hillary lost and if they have to do with anything the Obama administration could have done differently.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:56 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:49 pm
I think so? but also doing things to let the bad stuff happen on purpose. like not voting for Trump's main opponent so he has a better chance to getting a second term. (I assume anyone who thinks that is a genuinely good idea is at least white)
Yeah, it sounds similar to the logic of someone like Susan Sarandon who claimed that Trump might be a good president in the sense that his incompetence will break the, um, already broken system. And if we know anything about entropy, it's that it's always a great and productive idea to shake our broken toys.

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:49 pm
regardless, I'm curious as to what theories Biden has as to why Trump won/Hillary lost and if they have to do with anything the Obama administration could have done differently.
I think his jist, so far, is that he has a better connection to those rust-belt white working class voters that Hillary lost. Also, he's a man, so there's that.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:03 pm

In terms of sheer economics (as opposed to issues of demographics), I believe that Obama will be seen in history as doing a pretty exceptional job in revitalizing the economy after the financial collapse. The recovery arc from 2010-2016 is impressive anyway you want to look at it, and in most signifcant ways, we're still enjoying the results of his policies, however much Trump is eager to take credit for them. Donald is coasting on a plateau that Obama enabled.

I don't believe that a substantial percentage of Trump supporters voted on issues of foreign/national security policy (well, excepting immigration to an extent), so most of my criticisms toward Obama wouldn't apply to the 2016 election.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:04 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:56 pm
Yeah, it sounds similar to the logic of someone like Susan Sarandon who claimed that Trump might be a good president in the sense that his incompetence will break the, um, already broken system. And if we know anything about entropy, it's that it's always a great and productive idea to shake our broken toys.
Silver linings. Doesn't mean that she wanted the guy to be president relative to the other choices or that she thought it was a "great" idea.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:11 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:04 pm
Doesn't mean that she wanted the guy to be president relative to the other choices
Oh, like Jill Stein? Putin's benchwarmer? She's an adult enough to understand that she found Tump's presidency to be completely acceptable relative to Hillary Clinton: "If she won, we'd be at war." Funny, I kinda thought we are anyway....
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:01 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:11 pm
Oh, like Jill Stein? Putin's benchwarmer? She's an adult enough to understand that she found Tump's presidency to be completely acceptable relative to Hillary Clinton: "If she won, we'd be at war." Funny, I kinda thought we are anyway....
Well, if she was taking H at her word, then I can see why she would have that concern.

I don't know who "Putin's benchwarmers" are or how many Manchurian Candidates I am supposed to fear. You know, the tune has changed from "collusion" to "obstruction," so the Russia! Russia! Russia! chorus is a bit out of date.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:40 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:01 pm
Well, if she was taking H at her word, then I can see why she would have that concern.
I don't remember her running on a pro-war platform exactly. I suppose she might be more hawkish is some regions, like Syria, but I don't see her getting sucked into a hot-war with Russia. (I suppose you find Putin a bit of a dove in that respect?)

One thing is clearly for sure, and that is that Clinton would not done two things: 1) pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal; and 2) facilitated Saudi Arabia's nearly completed nuclear reactor by illegally bypassing international agreements under the IAEA. That, of course, makes a recipe for an inevitable nuclear arms race in the Middle East. I have a hard time contemplating how such a scenario is somehow more "anti-war" than anything else Clinton would have initiated.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:01 pm
I don't know who "Putin's benchwarmers" are or how many Manchurian Candidates I am supposed to fear. You know, the tune has changed from "collusion" to "obstruction," so the Russia! Russia! Russia! chorus is a bit out of date.
So you haven't read the Mueller report, eh? Glenn Beck hasn't had a summary podcast yet?

Putin actively supported Trump's candidacy, presumably for a beneficial reason. He also supported Stein as a way to siphon off Clinton votes. There has been no reversal regarding the charges behind the Internet Research Agency's operations. Trump and Stein are "poléznaja idiótka". One suspects that a candidate for president who is preferred and supported by a dictator precisely because of the damage one can do to the country's democratic system might, if not for being an idiot, even begin to take that as a personal insult after a while.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:57 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:40 pm
I don't remember her running on a pro-war platform exactly. I suppose she might be more hawkish is some regions, like Syria, but I don't see her getting sucked into a hot-war with Russia. (I suppose you find Putin a bit of a dove in that respect?)
I saw Syria as a real concern as a potential flashpoint, in part, because Putin is anything but a dove.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:40 pm
So you haven't read the Mueller report, eh? Glenn Beck hasn't had a summary podcast yet?


The sounds the talking heads are making with their faces have to do with open questions and the possibility of unseen proof and complaints about redactions and conspiratorial conjectures.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:40 pm
Putin actively supported Trump's candidacy, presumably for a beneficial reason.


That proves... ...nothing.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:40 pm
He also supported Stein as a way to siphon off Clinton votes.


And this proves that she is a Putin "benchwarmer"? An agent? A secret agent? A dupe a fool? If Putin supports your candidacy is your only option to step down in shame for the good of the Republic? I hope Putin doesn't like chocolate ice cream.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:08 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:57 pm
The sounds the talking heads are making with their faces have to do with open questions and the possibility of unseen proof and complaints about redactions and conspiratorial conjectures.
So....no, you haven't.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:57 pm
That proves... ...nothing.
It proves that Putin supported Trump precisely because he's toxic to liberal democracy.

This is a fair estimate from Douglas Rushkoff on the situation.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:57 pm
And this proves that she is a Putin "benchwarmer"? An agent? A secret agent? A dupe a fool?
It's almost like I've already said exactly what she is in the previous post.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:57 pm
If Putin supports your candidacy is your only option to step down in shame for the good of the Republic?
I think that someone of Sarandon's purported intelligence should probably be alarmed at the salivation of an authoritarian looking to take advantage.

At least Andrew Yang has the good sense to denounce those alt-righters who have attempted to disingenuously co-opt his candidacy. Trump and Stein, remarkably, did not.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:03 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:08 pm
So....no, you haven't.


No, I have not.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:08 pm
It proves that Putin supported Trump precisely because he's toxic to liberal democracy.


No, at most, it proves that he supported Trump because he felt it would, in some sense, be beneficial to his interests to do so.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:08 pm
This is a fair estimate from Douglas Rushkoff on the situation.

It's almost like I've already said exactly what she is in the previous post.
A benchwarmer? A useful idiot? A competing candidate? What does it say about our free and open elections that we shout down third-party candidates?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:08 pm
I think that someone of Sarandon's purported intelligence shout probably be alarmed at the salivation of an authoritarian looking to take advantage.


And I suppose we should have been alarmed when Stalin was also looking to defeat Hitler?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:08 pm
At least Andrew Yang has the good sense to denounce those alt-righters who have attempted to disingenuously co-opt his candidacy. Trump and Stein, remarkably, did not.
How do you know that they're disingenuous? Which ones? All of them? Most of them?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:39 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:03 pm
No, at most, it proves that he supported Trump because he felt it would, in some sense, be beneficial to his interests to do so.
So, yes, because his interest is the dissolution of liberal democracy, thank you.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:03 pm
What does it say about our free and open elections that we shout down third-party candidates?
Not what I'm doing. I'm calling out a specific third party candidate for a very specific reason.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:03 pm
And I suppose we should have been alarmed when Stalin was also looking to defeat Hitler?
Who's "Hitler" supposed to be in this analogy, prof?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:03 pm
How do you know that they're disingenuous? Which ones? All of them? Most of them?
I'm going to go ahead and guess that white nationalists aren't supporting an Asian president for honest reasons.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:39 pm
So, yes, because his interest is the dissolution of liberal democracy, thank you.


Is it? Is it really? Did the terrorists hate us for our "freedom"?

Is he really trying to end liberal democracy everywhere or is he just playing the game of politics?

Are we in a Manichean existential struggle or do countries fuck with each other for various reasons?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:39 pm
Not what I'm doing. I'm calling out a specific third party candidate for a very specific reason.


That reason being she should not siphon off votes that really belong to HRC?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:39 pm
Who's "Hitler" supposed to be in this analogy, prof?


Doesn't really matter. Contingent alignments of interests sometime happen. For you this seems to imply some deep ontological reduction (e.g., puppet, benchwarmer) whereby one becomes the property of another merely by accidentally sharing a property.

Also, your reasoning is easily reversible. Can we not say that Putin is an unwitting benchwarmer for Stein in opposing Hillary?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:39 pm
I'm going to go ahead and guess that white nationalists aren't supporting an Asian president for honest reasons.
MotherJones is laughable in trying "white nationalism" to Reddit (which is a huge site with many various communities, most of which are actually leftist) and viewers of Joe Rogan. And the proof? A few anecdotal shitposts from Discord users?

If you define "white nationalist" promiscuously (as is so common these days), then a good many people who are allegedly "white nationalists" because they're white or because they don't believe in open borders or because they voted for Trump or because they have a pick up truck, etc (in short, anyone who disagrees with you who is to the right of you politically), then we will find that there are a good many of them who sincerely support Yang for president. If, on the other hand, we define "white nationalist" less hysterically and more narrowly (e.g., those who directly avow that want a white ethno state on the basis of white superiority), you're more likely to be correct that they only support him strategically (can't have a non-white president in a pure ethno-state, right?), but in that case you're speaking about a group of people who is so small that they don't matter either way. The problem is you don't get to have it both ways. You don't both get the lazy smear of "everyone's a Nazi that I don't like" and also the claim that those who disagree with you only support Yang insincerely.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm
Is it? Is it really?
Yes.

Brian Grodsky wrote:Perhaps Putin’s greatest success is in sowing turmoil in Western democracies themselves. By attacking global democracy in its Western heart, Putin simultaneously reveals democratic deficits and weakens those who might wage a counterattack to save their long-held values.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm
That reason being she should not siphon off votes that really belong to HRC?
No, the reason being that she was a willing stooge.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm
Doesn't really matter.
Well, thanks for bringing it up.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm
Can we not say that Putin is an unwitting benchwarmer for Stein in opposing Hillary?
You could say it, but I doubt that you could explain how that makes any sense.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm
MotherJones is laughable in trying "white nationalism" to Reddit
I don't give a fuck about the integrity of Reddit. The point is that there were white nationalists (like "Louis" in the article) that were hyping Yang, and Yang has publicly disavowed the support of these white supremacists. Neither Trump nor Stein disavowed the support of Putin's bad faith influence operation.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:38 pm
You don't both get the lazy smear of "everyone's a Nazi that I don't like" and also the claim that those who disagree with you only support Yang insincerely.
OK. I guess I'll just have to stick with the "white supremacists and white nationalists [that] viciously debated whether Yang’s politics had the potential to start a white revolution" as the standard of who I don't like and disagree with.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:54 pm

Speaking as someone who’s actually read the report, one thing demands some pretty fucking immediate clarification. Mueller makes it clear that he was never going to directly accuse the president of a crime. This was one of his team’s operating assumptions. Here’s from the very opening of volume 2 (with my highlights):
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

[...]

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
The gist here being: “I’m sticking with DOJ opinion that an indictment can’t be brought against a sitting president because it would unduly burden the execution of his office. Because I can’t bring an indictment, I also can’t very well accuse him of a committing a crime without undermining principles of legal fairness—someone accused of a crime is entitled to answer that charge in court court and in a timely manner. I was never going to say that Donald Trump committed any crimes. That said, after a thorough investigation, if I could say clearly that he did not commit obstruction, I would—I cannot say that.”

What follows is a detailed account of some fourteen potential points of obstruction and an analysis at the end of each section detailing whether or not the evidence is consistent with the three criteria for obstruction. In four, he finds substantial evidence across the board. In another four, the evidence leans in favor of obstruction. In another four, the evidence falls short for at least one of the criteria. (Interesting to note here how in some of these cases, Trumps personal counsel appear to be the ones undertaking the potential obstruction, and Mueller defers to attorney client/privilege to discuss why he didn’t pursue it further—probably not interested in going into that thicket when there was already plenty of public evidence available in the other sections.) In one case, he says that the evidence is not consistent with obstruction. (Him assisting in the press cover-up of the Trump Tower meeting did not extend to concealing or encouraging people to conceal information about it from the investigation.) In another case, we don’t know due to redactions. (This is pretty obviously a Roger Stone section, and funny enough, they even redact his name from a publicly available FOX interview with Trump.)

This has a useful chart for anyone interested:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction ... t-heat-map

He then goes into great detail explaining why a president can be culpable for obstruction and how Congress has the authority to impeach him for it. I mean, painstaking fucking detail. Even on points where the president has extensive powers, like firing and pardons, he argues that it’s legally possible for Congress to impeach him for misusing them, like attempting to fire the special counsel or floating the offer of pardons to witnesses if these are done in order to obstruct an investigation. That's part of the case presented in the preceding sections. If anyone is any doubt after that, they can simply look to the concluding sentence of the report:
In sum, contrary to the position taken by the President’s counsel, we concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues, we had a valid basis for investigating the conduct at issue in this report. In our view, the application of the obstruction statutes would not impermissibly burden the President’s performance of his Article II function to supervise prosecutorial conduct or to remove inferior law-enforcement officers. And the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person — including the President — accords with the fundamental principle of our government that “[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.”
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:55 pm

Yeesh, formatting.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:58 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:38 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yLx_wDq1Wo

Pretty good debate between Greenwald and Johnston.
That was a deeply shitty debate from all around. Most of the time the guys can hardly stay on point. A few comments:

I don’t know what the hell Johnston is talking about claiming that Mueller deferred to Congress on the conspiracy charge. He didn’t. At all.

I also don’t remember the report connecting Kilimnik getting polling data from Manafort and the actions of the IRA. Could be that information was forwarded on, but that’s not in the findings. Johnston and Greenwald do a great deal of mixing up parts of the report and free-associating on other subjects.

Greenwald banging on the Steele report is just a joke. It did not form the basis for the conspiracy investigation. I can’t even recall it being mentioned in that volume. It’s mentioned mostly in the second volume and mostly for its role in the media narrative, not for its claims. Greenwald spouting "hoax" and all that Trumper nonsense is grossly inaccurate. Mueller provides substantial justification for the investigating the scores of links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. It's a bad look feeding into Trump's authoritarian playbook to dismiss the entire investigation as such and any oversight into him and those who surround him.

As for him trying to liken Trump Tower meeting with the Steele report and a DNC staffer reaching out to people in the Ukrainian embassy to dig up dirt on Manafort, it doesn’t hold water. For anyone interested in the latter, see below (also includes a link to the original Politico article):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c5d4cca6cf

Steele wasn’t working a foreign government. He was an oppo researcher. The DNC staffer wasn’t even in the oppo research part of the organization—she was in ethnic outreach, and she pursued the Manafort dirt on her own. I honestly don’t know what anybody expects to get her on. Neither of these were part of (in Mueller’s words) a “sweeping and systematic” operation to interfere in our election, one for which Mueller has issued numerous indictments of Russian actors, one which Trump and his team were aware of earlier than the rest of us and evinced a clear willingness to engage in, ultimately lying about both.
“Greenwald” wrote: But in other areas of the report, on collusion, Mueller went much further than that, to say not just that there’s not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there’s no evidence at all that this happened. And the language that he used, which I’m going to have to read, since David claims that it isn’t in there, is that Mueller himself said, “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence … about a particular fact or event.” For example, he says the Internet Research Agency, the Russia-based trolling farm, used Facebook posts and tweets to try and disrupt the election. And he says, “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.”
What? None of this follows at all. That first quote isn’t even a quote and the second is about the conspiracy charge, not collusion. Later, Greenwald tries to claim that the absence of an underlying crime of conspiracy proves that Trump didn’t have corrupt motive for obstruction, which is just ridiculous on its face. If you required proof of an underlying crime to establish obstruction, and the obstruction kept us from getting proof of that underlying crime, then you’ve just incentivized obstruction. That’s a fucking elementary legal point. Beyond that, you don’t even need to be trying to cover-up an underlying crime. Mueller explicitly addresses this on numerous occasions and details instances from Trump consistent with such corrupt intent:
“Vol 2, Page 157” wrote: Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g., United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that “obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime”). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:09 am

AND INCIDENTALLY...

The report shows that Seth Rich was dead and cold when the DNC emails were sent to Wikileaks.

You broken vibrator.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:39 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 pm
No, the reason being that she was a willing stooge.


Standing for what you believe in doesn't make you a "stooge." If Putin wants what you see as the right answer for his own (wrong) reason, that doesn't mean you now suddenly have the wrong answer.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 pm
Well, thanks for bringing it up.
You're welcome. The point of the analogy was not so smear someone as "Hitler" by analogy, but to illustrate that contingent alignments of interests are not always a bad thing.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 pm
You could say it, but I doubt that you could explain how that makes any sense.


First off, it is a conceptual argument, so we don't need deep explanations of anything here. Understanding can be had by just considered that instrumental benefit for one can also be instrumental benefit for the other (good for the goose is good for the gander). Clearly, if Susan feels that HRC would dive America into a war, then her vote for Stein (or anyone else not HRC) is expressively appropriate (this is who she wants independent of outcomes) and instrumentally fitting (not going to war is a good thing). Knowing that, Putin makes himself the willing stooge of all who oppose HRC for president.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 pm
I don't give a fuck about the integrity of Reddit. The point is that there were white nationalists (like "Louis" in the article) that were hyping Yang, and Yang has publicly disavowed the support of these white supremacists. Neither Trump nor Stein disavowed the support of Putin's bad faith influence operation.


Why should they? Why even dignify it? Yang can protest that he is not a witch all he wants, but he will still be smeared as alt-right, or a fellow traveler, or whatever. He has veered from the official lefty narrative and so he will be punished for that.

It doesn't matter how many times you disavow,



so to hell with the whining about disavowals.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 pm
OK. I guess I'll just have to stick with the "white supremacists and white nationalists [that] viciously debated whether Yang’s politics had the potential to start a white revolution" as the standard of who I don't like and disagree with.
Do what you please, but that doesn't mean that it matters.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:58 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:39 pm
Standing for what you believe in doesn't make you a "stooge."
Sitting next to Putin after he seized the first sovereign European land since WWII kinda does though.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:39 pm
The point of the analogy was not so smear someone as "Hitler" by analogy, but to illustrate that contingent alignments of interests are not always a bad thing.
Yes, only when the "interests" in question happen to be a bad thing. I guess that considering how you're pretending to not understand what Putin's interests even are, this is a difficult concept for you.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:39 pm
Clearly, if Susan feels that HRC would dive America into a war, then her vote for Stein (or anyone else not HRC) is expressively appropriate (this is who she wants independent of outcomes) and instrumentally fitting (not going to war is a good thing).
Of course, we're still at war (haha, "dive"), so good for her. But let's not ignore what she said about the quite cognizant notion of her Stein vote enabling Trump: "Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately, if he gets in. Then things will really, you know, explode." Sounds plausibly pacifist.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:39 pm
Why should they?
Dignity?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:39 pm
It doesn't matter how many times you disavow...
Just so we don't forget what we're talking about here, Trump has only reluctantly acknowledged the fact of Russian election interference, famously taking Putin at his word for why he wouldn't. Apparently, the subject cannot be brought to his attention as a matter of office policy.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:02 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:58 pm
Yes, only when the "interests" in question happen to be a bad thing. I guess that considering how you're pretending to not understand what Putin's interests even are, this is a difficult concept for you.
I can't always tell if YARN is genuinely that naive or if it's more of a tactical exaggeration born out of a view of argument as a clash of forces at most indirectly (fingers crossed) nudging us towards truth. But one can make serious arguments for Putin's weaknesses without denying his obvious intention and effects. He genuinely wants more illiberal, isolated governments around the world, but especially in Europe, because it gives him a freer hand to expand his influence and restore lost territories he considers historically Russian. Ukraine is obviously the first on his list, a region Russians have long considered as containing the ur-Russia. Add to that his extensive interventions and designs on the Baltic states. I listen to a Latvian dude's podcast about Soviet History and he frequently adds in contemporary news most often about worrying developments in Russia.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:58 pm
Of course, we're still at war (haha, "dive"), so good for her. But let's not ignore what she said about the quite cognizant notion of her Stein vote enabling Trump: "Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately, if he gets in. Then things will really, you know, explode." Sounds plausibly pacifist.
It's an old Communist line. It's lead to some horrific outcomes. That'll never stop it from being popular among comfortably-marginalized leftists.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:58 pm
Yes, only when the "interests" in question happen to be a bad thing.


But that is a different question, "J." If this, at root, is the problem, then the problem is NOT that one party was giving aid and comfort the enemy by supporting the wrong candidate, but merely that one party was wrong for supporting the wrong candidate. And it remains to be established why other direct and sincere "interests" Democrat candidates in the field were a wrong thing.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:58 pm
I guess that considering how you're pretending to not understand what Putin's interests even are, this is a difficult concept for you.


And what are his interests, dear boy? Hmm? Of more salience than his "interests" (feel free to speculate all you want) are his actions. And after ALL this Russia! Russia! Russia! screeching and now that we have the summary Mueller and now that we have the redacted report, what evidence do we have of "collusion"? Oh, that's right, we moved on to "obstruction". So, what does that leave us with? Well, that leaves us with what we knew before. Geo-political trolling and the Dems being embarassed by inconvenient truths that came out of WikiLeaks (ProTip: Stop doing dirty shit and you won't be embarrassed by the truth). The evidence we found of Russia's interference in our election of 2016 pales in comparison to what we did, for example, in Guatemala in 1954. There is "OMFG they're destroying us!" and typical political fuckery which is part of Geopolitics. You know, like HRC in 2006 talking saying about not arranging a Palestinian election unless "we did something to determine who was going to win." Or this, https://www.dailywire.com/news/18593/fl ... oseph-curl
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:58 pm
Just so we don't forget what we're talking about here, Trump has only reluctantly acknowledged the fact of Russian election interference, famously taking Putin at his word for why he wouldn't. Apparently, the subject cannot be brought to his attention as a matter of office policy.
No amount of denial, disavowal, or dissociation will make a difference, as evidenced by what can be seen in the clip I posted. A media ownership chart reveals just how few the players really are in our "journalistic" ecosystem.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:06 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
And what are his interests, dear boy? Hmm? Of more salience than his "interests" (feel free to speculate all you want) are his actions.

Woah, boy! Mind blown. These abstractions and appeals to ignorance stemming from a dearth of basic research make for some nasty curveballs.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
And after ALL this Russia! Russia! Russia! screeching and now that we have the summary Mueller and now that we have the redacted report, what evidence do we have of "collusion"?
You're confusing different things. Trump and co. could be as spotless as the Lamb (they aren't), but that still wouldn't tell us anything about Putin's actions and intentions. The Mueller report - which, again, I've read, and, again, you haven't - goes into great detail describing the "sweeping and systematic" operation of Russia to influence our election, extending beyond a social media campaign and targeted leaks to numerous attempts on our voting systems. Of course, there are also large parts of this story that were redacted (mostly covering the IRA), so even with the extensive and troubling information we have, there's still more that we don't. It should be a no-brainer, a basic defensive policy, to take measures guarding against incursions into our electoral process.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
Oh, that's right, we moved on to "obstruction".
Obstruction became a part of the conversation when Trump started trying to obstruct the investigation and then obstruct any investigation into his obstructions. That you think this is a new part of the conversation is either because you never really followed it or you're just feigning ignorance to score rhetorical points. You call yourself a "classical liberal" and you don't take exception to president rankly abusing their office to undermine the rule of law and a Congress unwilling to exercise its duties in the balance of powers? You aren't a classical liberal. You're just a guy stroking petty resentments and laboring to preserve a picture of himself as a sagacious commentator.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
So, what does that leave us with? Well, that leaves us with what we knew before. Geo-political trolling and the Dems being embarassed by inconvenient truths that came out of WikiLeaks (ProTip: Stop doing dirty shit and you won't be embarrassed by the truth).

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that you've taken this line, since you've put your own credibility on the line by swallowing Russian-amplified disinformation (e.g. Seth Rich). As for the inconvenient truths and dirty shit, can you describe it in the your own words? Can you paint a compelling picture? Because every time you've tried to, you've had to walk it back and water it down before retreating into these empty generalities. It's almost like you're in sympathy with the Trumpian strategy that sowing contempt and confusion is an end in itself.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
The evidence we found of Russia's interference in our election of 2016 pales in comparison to what we did, for example, in Guatemala in 1954.
Certainly is. What we did in Guatemala also pales in comparison to, I dunno, WWII. So fucking what? We shouldn't be overthrowing elected governments. We should protect ourselves against foreign incursions into our electoral process. I got here by way of a simple moral calculus.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
You know, like HRC in 2006 talking saying about not arranging a Palestinian election unless "we did something to determine who was going to win." Or this, https://www.dailywire.com/news/18593/fl ... oseph-curl
We did interfere in the Palestinian election, on the side of Hamas. An old-school colonialist attempt to divide and conquer the Palestinian opposition. It backfired horribly. Clinton's Cold War mentality telling her we should've just pushed it the other way completely misses the point. You throw up your hands and say "business as usual" because this is just an argumentative gambit for you crowing about hypocrisy, but you're totally uninterested in what good international policies would actually look like.

The so-called American interference in Yeltsin's election is one I addressed back at RT, which you couldn't muster a single word against. It's thin. Two American political consultants were independently hired by Yeltsin to assist with his campaign. Mostly they assisted with the media side, but it was an ambivalent relationship. One of the consultants reached out to Dick Morris in the Clinton administration and asked if Clinton could go light on Yeltsin at a summit to make the latter look better, which he did. Yeltsin probably ended up stealing the election anyway. Of note, Yeltsin's campaign was zealous to keep these consultants out of the spotlight to avoid the impression of American influence because, you know, people get touchy at the specter of foreign interference (even in Russia, with its similarly extensive history of interference). What do you know?
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:07 pm

Sorry to jump in, Jinn. I know you can handle yourself, but it's hard to help myself when the cup of bullshit runneth over.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:15 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
But that is a different question, "J."
No, not really. Maybe different from the question that you'd prefer to answer.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
And what are his interests, dear boy? Hmm?
I don't know.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
Of more salience than his "interests" (feel free to speculate all you want) are his actions.
Ah. "Actions" like invading and seizing a soveriegn country, waging a decades-old war on truth and violating the INF? And for what ends would he support one particular candidate? Because he happens to be singularly toxic to administrating a democratic intitution of government? Because he is singularly unsettling democratic alliances? Gosh, I wish we knew.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
now that we have the redacted report, what evidence do we have of "collusion"?
We have evidence of Putin's interference, which would usually upset anyone else who was not an authoritarian.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:31 pm
(ProTip: Stop doing dirty shit and you won't be embarrassed by the truth).
Yeah, you could always stop, I guess. But you could also start dropping a lot more people off their balconies.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:50 pm

Ergill wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:02 pm
It's an old Communist line. It's lead to some horrific outcomes. That'll never stop it from being popular among comfortably-marginalized leftists.
Yes, this the accelerationism that Oxnard was mentioning. (Marx was apparently the original accelerationist.)

It seems like a tacit admission that maybe things aren't actually as bad as they seem if it requires a nudge into self-fullfilling disaster. I neither think that bad situations are necessary for spurring good solutions nor that good solutions are exclusively spurred by bad situations, so I don't quite get the faith behind petulent sabatage.

Ergill wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:06 pm
The so-called American interference in Yeltsin's election is one I addressed back at RT, which you couldn't muster a single word against. It's thin. Two American political consultants were independently hired by Yeltsin to assist with his campaign. Mostly they assisted with the media side, but it was an ambivalent relationship. One of the consultants reached out to Dick Morris in the Clinton administration and asked if Clinton could go light on Yeltsin at a summit to make the latter look better, which he did. Yeltsin probably ended up stealing the election anyway. Of note, Yeltsin's campaign was zealous to keep these consultants out of the spotlight to avoid the impression of American influence because, you know, people get touchy at the specter of foreign interference (even in Russia, with its similarly extensive history of interference). What do you know?
This story is so dumb, but keeps coming up as an example of hypocrisy (the history of CIA-abetted coups are much firmer ground for that comparison, imo). I've never seen any allegations, much less evidence, of illegal activity, disinformation, "dirty tricks" or any other chicanery during the Yeltsin election on behalf of these consultants. Indeed, I've never seen any indication of actual policy influence itself. Yeltsin won by a comfortable 10 million vote margin, a handsome mandate. Yarn likes to point out that the TIME magazine cover (a scant month after the election) referred to these advisors as a "secret story", but that's just selling magazines. If we were actually orchestrating Yeltsin like a puppet, we likely wouldn't be eager to risk his legitimacy by publicly humiliating him in the national press. (I will concede however that I am not a doctor of political science.)

Ergill wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:07 pm
Sorry to jump in, Jinn. I know you can handle yourself, but it's hard to help myself when the cup of bullshit runneth over.
I understand, acquiesce, and commiserate.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:56 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:15 pm
No, not really. Maybe different from the question that you'd prefer to answer.


Yes, it actually is. You're going to have to decide how committed you are to the allegedly contaminating effects of contingent alignment of interests (I await you're scientific account of "Cooties" as it relates to geopolitics) or whether it is the interests themselves we should be interested in.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:15 pm
Ah. "Actions" like invading and seizing a soveriegn country, waging a decades-old war on truth and violating the INF? And for what ends would he support one particular candidate? Because he happens to be singularly toxic to administrating a democratic intitution of government? Because he is singularly unsettling democratic alliances? Gosh, I wish we knew.


Not respecting sovereign nations makes them sound a bit like... ....us. Waging war on the truth sounds like us. Undermining democracies in our nation and other nations is also in our wheelhouse. Shall we freak out now? It's cute that you think he is a singularity of toxicity, but really, Russia in 2016 turned out to be, as Van Jones said, "a nothing burger."

You cannot prove that the end is nigh because of Russia's fuckery (which is on a par with our own and within unwritten norms international inter-influence), so you get stuck back on stupid, speculating about the nefarious and apparently world-ending "ends" of Putin supporting a particular candidate, which is the very thing which was so supposed to be established in your reply.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:15 pm
We have evidence of Putin's interference, which would usually upset anyone else who was not an authoritarian.


Yes we do. There is interference going on all the time. Welcome to international relations. What we still need is the smoking gun that unmasks Putin has having the hidden absolute power over our nation that you keep whinging about.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:15 pm
Yeah, you could always stop, I guess. But you could also start dropping a lot more people off their balconies.
Don't whine about what a thug in a failed socialist state is doing.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:18 pm

I see that YARN has surreptitiously dropped his “play dumb” act about Putin’s intentions. Probably because there was never any merit to his skepticism to start with. He’s also reframed the nature of their interventions from insignificant to “not world-ending”, which is, like, wow, great, truly enlightening. But here in the everyday world of everyday matters, it’s something we should care about as a baseline, nonpartisan, defensive issue. It’s something we should devote more attention to than either you or Trump are willing to do.

As for the whataboutism angle, I can’t say that it survives a cursory inspection. A brief overview:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... gistration

Notably the most egregious examples of our electoral intervention come from decades back during the height of Cold War when interventions were at their height. The historical trend of our meddling in other countries’ elections has been a downward slope. The same had been the case with Russia until Putin amped it back up with gusto, investing in large hacking, propaganda and intimidation operations throughout its former Soviet neighbors and into the wider world. Along with it came the attacks on Georgia and Crimea and the continuing threats to eastern Ukraine, all in keeping with a WWII-style revanchism. People who shout, “What about Iraq and Afghanistan?” would do well to try to answer that. Yeah, what about them? Do you honestly look at those and think, “Hey, everybody ’meddles’, no big deal”? Those are case studies in why we should consider it a big deal. If all you have are calls of hypocrisy and a nihilistic throwing up of the hands, I’m not sure what kind of moral or prudential credibility you have to stand on. And what’s the outcome you’re looking for? The simplistic isolationism of old? If we were to plop you into The Plot Against America and you threw your chips in with Charles Lindbergh, I can’t say that I see much to admire in your strategic or moral compass.

Like, we supported the overthrow of Allende decades ago—guess we shouldn’t care if Bernie gets elected and the same happens to him, right? Uh, no, wrong. We clearly need some standard of better from worse and some principle against allowing ourselves to slide more directly into the latter or else we’ve given up the game. Again, your generically talking about meddling does the issue no good. As the article above notes, Putin likes to label our support for pro-democratic, international organizations as nefarious colonialism on par with fucking over of Iraq in the name of “freedom”. But this kind of cynical leveling of everything as an irrationalist vying for power is as much a postmodern platitude as it is an excuse for authoritarians to spread their own power. Far from being a “failed socialist state” (er, it’s not thirty years ago, dude), Russia has been a consequential source of destabilization among its neighbors and elsewhere. Putin’s short-thinking may very well be driving his country into a ditch while he and his oligarch buddies plunder it for all its worth, but that’s hardly something we should laugh off. Venezuela is a genuinely failed socialist state and we’re seeing how that has repercussions reaching up to even our front door.

Even if we only had worry about a shady influence campaign, and that’s not all we have to worry about, there’s a sizable enough segment of the population for that campaign to be decisive. It’s probably not something we’ll ever be able to answer for sure, but there is a significant enough chance that Russian interventions were able to shift the election through their influence campaign aimed at amplifying pro-Trump, anti-Clinton sentiments. When we can find a margin of victory across three Rust Belt states amounting collectively to somewhere around 75,000 votes, and when a large enough segment of voters made their decision in the last week, we’re talking about an exceedingly exploitable situation we found ourselves in. With it went the Republican party’s ideology hook-line-and-sinker into the Trump party and marked shift in our national conversation towards a radical nativist illiberalism.

People are worryingly manipulable. Again, I guess it’s convenient, if no less dismal, that you example this time and again. You reference (and tellingly don’t link) Van Jones calling “Russia in 2016” a “nothing burger” to bolster your claim the interference was inconsequential. But what the fuck is meant by “Russia in 2016”? Oh wait, he didn’t say that about Russian interference? It only takes a one-second Google-search to see what he actually meant?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions ... index.html

Turns out this was another cheap con by James O’Keefe, and you bought it like a Baby Boomer in an unwitting game of Fascist Telephone. I’m reminded of a co-worker who said she didn’t trust Obama because he didn’t wear a flag pin and once said (so I assume some racist e-mail chain told her) that he wished he could rip the white out of himself. Falsehoods breed and speed round the earth ten times before the truth can get its pants on. When people are called on it, they either quibble or shrug and move on to the next one.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:04 pm



World War Z cartoon for AOC's Green New Deal. "And then everyone listened to me and the world was saved!"

Strange that there is push to package social justice and addressing climate change as one issue. The opening lines of Roy Scanton's book-tour talk on WGBHForum reveal the same "package deal."
Roy Scranton wrote:The only thing that seems capable to me of addressing climate change as a global problem is a centralized global government that's that's able to address economic and social justice issues with some sort of some sense of equality and to distribute redistribute economic goods right in a in a centralized way and so you know that that does seem to me in an abstract way like the only possible approach to deal with this global problem.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L32FS_B2dLI&t=1731s

There is no note of the tension between saving the environment and giving everyone free healthcare and college degrees, as if we can exercise the "why not both option?" option without having to prioritize one massively over the other. If the climate alarmists are correct (and AOC's claim that we have 12 years to fix it or the world ends, definitely puts her in this camp), we're going to have make much harder choices than recycling, buying Energy Star appliances, and handing out college degrees.

User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:02 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:56 am
it is the interests themselves we should be interested in.
If only we knew what those were...

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:56 am
Not respecting sovereign nations makes them sound a bit like... ....us. Waging war on the truth sounds like us. Undermining democracies in our nation and other nations is also in our wheelhouse.
But what about whataboutism? When I get around to supporting neoliberalism, then you can claim hypocrisy for my calling out Putin's aggression.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:56 am
What we still need is the smoking gun that unmasks Putin has having the hidden absolute power over our nation that you keep whinging about.
I don't see where I've mentioned anything about "hidden absolute power", but if that's the bar you want to set for a smoking gun, then I guess it beats an undetonated apartment bomb.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:56 am
Don't whine about what a thug in a failed socialist state is doing.
That Rushkoff article mentions how Putin has made an art out of being both intimidating and pitiful at the same time. Anyway, I was actually whining about idiots who consider Trump to be some kind of civic emetic.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:33 am

I'm reminded of YARN mocking the young legislators pushing for the Green New Deal, explicitly trying to contrast them with Bernie, despite Bernie being totally in their camp. What does he believe, we wonder? Nothing.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:37 am

*Arya blade*
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:34 am

personally, I'm not against yoking the climate change issue to any number of social justice issues. although I get that for a lot of people some social justice stuff is more directly related to climate change than others and it wouldn't hurt if any proponents of a GND kept that in mind while trying to garner support. but it's whatever. for now all I feel like Congress can do on the climate change is just keep pushing on the Overton window.

and I'm always in favor of making harder choices.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:12 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:34 am
personally, I'm not against yoking the climate change issue to any number of social justice issues.
I am. If you want to get people in the middle and leaning to the right on board, you have to do it in terms that invite everyone to the table. Do you want to save the world or do you want to champion transgender girls at state track meets? So long as we're quibbling over our first-world problems, the end-of-the-world problems will take a back seat (i.e., this is what is happening now).

AOC's cartoon fantasy of saving the world via Amtrak is a joke. It's not about the U.S. at this point. China is in the lead now and we can't simply legislate that they no longer release 10 million tons of CO2 into the air. At mid-century we will have 9 billion on this planet and the experts are saying we will need to produce twice as much food to feed them.


Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:34 am
although I get that for a lot of people some social justice stuff is more directly related to climate change than others and it wouldn't hurt if any proponents of a GND kept that in mind while trying to garner support. but it's whatever. for now all I feel like Congress can do on the climate change is just keep pushing on the Overton window.

and I'm always in favor of making harder choices.
If we were in favor of making harder choices we wouldn't be on the internet.

Want some hard choices? Here we go.

Nuclear power is the greenest option we have. Are you ready for massive investment in nuclear energy? Uh oh, we only have 12 years to get back on track before we're screwed. Know how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant? Are you ready to risk a rushed schedule of deregulated construction of nuclear power plants to cut down on carbon emissions? Are you ready for rolling brown outs in the United States? Are you cool with electricity for four hours a day? And supposing you are, how do you think your neighbors are going to respond to their Netflix being cut off?

If we stopped putting crap into the air, then in about a week or two world temperature would pop up .5 C centigrade automatically. It's called the aerosol masking effect. Are you sure you want to stop pumping crap into the atmosphere?

We're running out of fish to pull out of the ocean and water to pull out of aquifers. Are you ready to start shooting at fishing boats in international waters? Are you ready for when the Ogallala Aquifer runs dry?

Are you ready for some super dangerous geoengineering. Because we're already turbo-fucked and no amount of drinking coffee with non-plastic straws is going to fix it.

50% of animals have disappeared in 40 years and now we're witnessing collapses in insect populations.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... t-matters/

Want to feed those 9 billion people? Well, you will need to engage in industrial farming. Guess what we're finding out about our insecticides? Turns out, they work. So which do you choose? Do you go full speed ahead to feed coming billions or do you pull back to take things easier on species? And what do you think happens when the world has coming billions who will be pissed off, hungry, and have nothing to lose?

And you want to tie social justice bullshit to all this? Really? It's not bad enough that we're knee deep in the anthropocene, but we're going to get preferred pronouns and party politics fundamentally tied to all this?
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:34 pm

when I said social justice I meant more along the lines of an expanded safety net for those who will be hit hardest by climate change i.e. stuff that is more directly correlated with environmental effects. sorry about that, I should have been more specific.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:39 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:34 pm
when I said social justice I meant more along the lines of an expanded safety net for those who will be hit hardest by climate change i.e. stuff that is more directly correlated with environmental effects. sorry about that, I should have been more specific.
That's a problem though. The term is ideological freighted. And what AOC means by the term carries a lot of that freight (as evidenced by the video).

Even so, there is no need to apologize. Interlocutors have a right to clarify their meaning. However, even looking at "social justice" in the least contentious sense of the term, as you suggest, is still going to leave us with impossible choices. If we presume that our safety net for those hit hardest by climate change includes "not starving death" and "not dying of heat exposure,"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eat-waves/

we're still jammed up in terms of choices.
Scientific American wrote:Tens of millions of Indians live in poverty. Heat waves killed 1,300 people there in 2010, 1,500 in 2013 and 2,500 in 2015, according to researchers. About a quarter of the country's population, totaling 1.3 billion people, doesn't have electricity and lives on less than $1.25 a day. Air conditioners are seen as a status symbol — a luxury of the middle class — and many of those most likely to die from heat have no way to keep cool.


Let's suppose temperatures continue to go up. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/clim ... ummer.html
NewYorkTimes wrote:Indeed, a recent analysis of climate trends in several of South Asia’s biggest cities found that if current warming trends continued, by the end of the century, wet bulb temperatures — a measure of heat and humidity that can indicate the point when the body can no longer cool itself — would be so high that people directly exposed for six hours or more would not survive.


People in India, of course, are probably not going to just "deal with it" until the end of the century as more and more of them die off in heat waves. We could build power plants and give them electricity. Unfortunately, power plants have a nasty habit of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly.

https://www.livescience.com/919-increas ... e-gas.html

And even if we could wave a magic wand and pump out the energy without consequences, we still have to consider the user-end. There is no such thing as a "cold machine." Air conditioners result in more net heat in the overall environment. They work by moving heat away from one area to somewhere else (outside). This is non-negligible amount of heat. Even just using computers to mine bitcoin produces a tremendous amount of heat (do a quick Google search and you will find people heating their homes and greenhouses with heat produced by computers sucking down more and more electricity to generate cryptocurrency).

So if we can't just provide air conditioners for 1.3 billion people (and climbing, don't forget population will continue to increase for the rest of the century), what then? I would imagine that they might want to move. Where shall they go? And how can we force nations like China to accept mass migration on the scale of hundreds of millions?

Hard choices indeed.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25197
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Stu » Thu May 02, 2019 6:47 am

Regarding the continued perception that Bernie Sanders doesn't care about African-Americans, or has nothing to offer on the issues that affect them (a perception that is partly just a baseless narrative corporate outlets push because they'll resort to anything to keep an actual progressive from winning, while also generally taking it easy on Hillary "super-predators" Clinton), I agree that he definitely needs improvement in this area, such as the way he softballed when he said it's not "necessarily" racist when white voters don't vote for black candidates because they're not comfortable with the color of their skin (which, obviously, it is). He absolutely deserve criticism for that, and on every other legitimate point regarding this and any other issue, but, the idea that he's overall terrible on African-American issues is just objectively false, whether we're talking about his lifelong track record or his current platform, as he protested in support of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's, was one of the few elected officials to endorse Jesse Jackson and his platform of racial justice over Dukakis during the '88 campaign (helping him win an upset in the Vermont primary), has consistently supported criminal justice reform long before he ever stepped onto the national stage, and holds a approval rating of 100% on his civil rights positions from the NAACP.

And regarding his platform, the idea that he focuses mostly on economic issues and almost completely ignores racial ones is itself ignoring the fact that economic justice IS inherently a form of racial justice, as African-Americans continue to be a disproportionately impoverished demographic in this country, so they naturally also tend to be disproportionately uninsured, under-paid, or forced to go into student loan debt in order to attend college, so Sander's plans for universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, or tuition-free higher education would all disproportionately BENEFIT African-Americans, moreso than most of the other candidates' platforms. Like I said, he does have room for improvement here, but every candidate needs that in one way or another, whether we're talking about Kamela's questionable track record on police shootings (among many other things), the way Biden wrote the '94 Crime Act in a way that EXPLODED the national incarceration rate (an aspect of the bill that Bernie strongly criticized at the time), or Warren's problematic co-opting of a supposedly part "Native American" identity (and she's one of the best candidates, even!). There is no perfect candidate on every single issue/area any more than there exists a perfect person, but speaking as a progressive, on the whole, he's still one of the best candidates running, and I'm going to continue to push for him to improve and be the best candidate possible on this issue, just like I push for every other candidate to be their best, even if it's someone as blatantly corrupt/status quo as Biden, because refusing to ever support someone for not being 100% flawless on this, or any other issue is unintentionally assisting in the re-election of Trump, someone who actually IS terrible on racial issues, and would just a way of cutting off your nose to spite your face... except your face, in this case, is the entire country.

/mytwocents
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu May 02, 2019 7:14 am

Stu wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 6:47 am
Regarding the continued perception that Bernie Sanders doesn't care about black voters, or has somehow nothing to offer on issues that affect African-Americans (which is partly just a baseless narrative that corporate outlets are pushing because they'll resort to anything to keep an actual progressive from winning), I agree that he definitely needs improvement there, whether we're talking about how he should support a national program of reparations, or the way he softballed when he said it's not "necessarily" racist when white voters don't vote for black candidates because they're not comfortable with the color of their skin (which, obviously, it is Bernie... it is). He absolutely deserves criticism on those, and any other legitimate points regarding this issue or any other, but, the idea that he's overall terrible on African-American issues is just objectively false, whether we're talking about his lifelong track record or his current platform, as he was an activist for the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's, was one of the few elected officials to endorse Jesse Jackson over Dukakis during the '88 campaign (helping him win an upset in the Vermont primary), and holds a approval rating of 100% on his civil rights positions from the NAACP.

And, regarding his platform, the idea that he focuses mostly on economic issues and almost completely ignores racial ones is itself ignoring the fact that economic justice IS inherently a form of racial justice, as African-Americans continue to be a disproportionately impoverished demographic in this country, so they naturally also tend to be disproportionately uninsured, under-paid, or forced to go into student loan-derived debt in order to attend college, so Sander's plans for universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, or tuition-free higher education would all disproportionately BENEFIT African-Americans, moreso than most of the other candidates' platforms. Like I said, he has room for improvement in this area, but every candidate needs that in one way or another, whether we're talking about Kamela Harris's questionable track record on police-involved shootings, the death penalty, and wrongful convictions, the way Biden wrote the '94 Crime Act in a way that exploded the national incarceration rate (an aspect of the bill that Bernie criticized at the time), or Warren's problematic co-opting of a supposedly part "Native American" identity (and she's one of the best candidates, even!). There is no perfect candidate on every single issue/area any more than there exists a perfect person, but speaking as a progressive, on the whole, he's still one of the best candidates running, and I'm going to continue to push for him to improve and be the best candidate possible on this issue, just like I push for any other candidate to be their best, even if it's someone as weak as Biden, because refusing to ever support Sanders for not being 100% flawless on this or any other issue is unintentionally assisting in the re-election of Trump, someone who actually IS terrible on racial issues, and would just a way of cutting off your nose to spite your face... except your face, in this case, is the entire country.

/mytwocents
Attacking Bernie from the left is ridiculous.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Rock » Fri May 03, 2019 12:27 am

Real talk: William Barr is just Steve Bannon after combing his hair and putting on glasses. He's the POS Clark Kent to Bannon's Superman.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri May 03, 2019 4:41 am

sorry Stu

Image
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25197
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Stu » Fri May 03, 2019 4:54 am

:oops:
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sat May 04, 2019 4:11 pm

speaking of The Sand Man, this is kind of adorable


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 020-226761
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri May 10, 2019 6:48 pm

I'm guessing the abortion law from Georgia is just a first step towards getting Roe v Wade overturned. or at least eventually one of these laws will get in front of SCOTUS.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat May 11, 2019 1:37 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 6:48 pm
I'm guessing the abortion law from Georgia is just a first step towards getting Roe v Wade overturned. or at least eventually one of these laws will get in front of SCOTUS.
That seems to be the plan.

Roe was an attempt to end a debate by fiat. We should have has a slow painful, but careful and deliberate cultural negotiation of this issue in the 1970s and 1980s, but that was cut short in '73. There is an episode of The Practice where Eugene remarks, "It was our Civil War. And you didn't let us have it."As far as fictional comments by fictional lawyers on fictional shows go, that one is pretty good, because the result was that both sides polarized on the issue with winners not wanting to give an inch and losers wanting to take a mile.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sun May 12, 2019 4:12 am

The Sexual Revolution is the conservatives' Civil War. Roe v Wade was just their Gettysburg.

I guess that makes Ben Shapiro some kind of Stonewall Jackson?
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sun May 12, 2019 4:34 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 4:12 am
The Sexual Revolution is the conservatives' Civil War. Roe v Wade was just their Gettysburg.

I guess that makes Ben Shapiro some kind of Stonewall Jackson?
Gallup Polls, for many years, have shown that the center mass of public opinion is against both hard core pro-lifers and pro-choicers, so I would not be so quick to dismiss tumult in our collective conscience as a mere "conservative" vs. "liberal" reduction. If we don't allow ourselves permission to occupy the middle ground, or even conceive of it outside of the binary absolutes, we will make no progress. Indeed, force the division, and you'll push more people to the right.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu May 16, 2019 2:11 pm

so I don't know if we're going to war with Iran but way back when, Trump had tried to evacuate military personal from South Korea.
Behind the scenes, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Kelly devised a compromise, according to two administration officials, and convinced the President to agree to a scaled-down directive that would bar military personnel in South Korea from bringing their families there during future tours, but avoid a dramatic evacuation, a senior administration official said. A new memorandum was drafted, but it too was never implemented.

Former US officials and North Korea experts said ordering the nearly 8,000 military dependents living in South Korea to leave the country would have set off alarm bells, heightening concerns about potential US military action at a time when Trump's bellicose rhetoric already had the region on edge.

"All chaos would have broken out," said Jung Pak, a former CIA official and deputy national intelligence officer at the National Intelligence Council. "This would have been a sure signpost for Kim (Jong Un) that the US was preparing for a military attack."
from https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/15/politics ... index.html

unless he's getting people out of Iraq to trigger the libs, lol
Post Reply