advertisement


Trump Part 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
636486048904274550-121217-Your-Say-Harassment-ONLINE.png
 
ah but A) will they? B) would it be honest? C) Would Republicans care about another fake news story or another sex pest being elected?
 

tones.

i've only read part of it and watched the little embedded video (for now) and it is full of claims that go way against the evidence and wild congecture about persuasion. the very label of "russia hacking the election" is outright propaganda, in that the regular person understands that to be something very different and much more direct, like tampering with results. finally, can someone please explain to me why the USA hasn't been attempting to spy the computer systems of foreign nations or spread disinformation via social media? at the very least, i imagine they have stopped doing anything like that.

on the positive side, at least the concept of a lucky bet vs. precisely-calculated strategy shows that a bit of critical thinking has gone on.
 
vuk, could you provide some sources to back up your wild conjectures? if you can't, perhaps you as a self-proclaimed academic should rethink and retract. apply the critical thinking you claim others do not.
 
tones.

i've only read part of it and watched the little embedded video (for now) and it is full of claims that go way against the evidence and wild congecture about persuasion. the very label of "russia hacking the election" is outright propaganda, in that the regular person understands that to be something very different and much more direct, like tampering with results. finally, can someone please explain to me why the USA hasn't been attempting to spy the computer systems of foreign nations or spread disinformation via social media? at the very least, i imagine they have stopped doing anything like that.

on the positive side, at least the concept of a lucky bet vs. precisely-calculated strategy shows that a bit of critical thinking has gone on.
I confess that I haven't been following the hacking affair particularly closely (to me, much of the US population is sufficiently idiotic to do the damage all on its own without any external assistance whatsoever - you start to wonder whether "government by the people for the people" is such a great idea). However, it seems to me that "Russia hacking the election" is precisely what happened, whether this was an organised attempt or a haphazard series of individual lucky punches.

And I would frankly be astounded if the USA wasn't trying to do the same thing to other countries. Of course, the USA is at somewhat of a disadvantage, in that English has become the world's language, especially in the technical fields, resulting in we native English speakers being generally pretty hopeless at other people's languages. This, combined with the US's general ignorance of (and almost total lack of interest in) other people's cultures, as opposed to the US's cultural model being spread far and wide via popular entertainment, would appear to give foreign hackers somewhat of an advantage operating into the USA. Certainly the Russians very cleverly utilised US prejudices and social attitudes to foment dissension and confusion.
 
I rather suspect Russia has realised it can achieve regime change without firing a shot. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Russian influence was instrumental in both Trump and Brexit, the fallout from both events has been a significant destabilisation of the West. This creates fault lines which can be exploited.

Bannon's (or whoever is behind Bannon) approach seems to be not unlike the US/UK axis' concept of regime change in the Middle East, namely that you reduce the present regime to rubble, thus creating opportunities to exploit and influence whatever emerges from the ruins. Hopefully, we never get to find out whether Bannon's plans are more coherent in respect of dealing with the aftermath than the Bush/Blair axis was at dealing with the power vacuum post-Saddam (ie, whether he actually has one, rather than just planning to wing it as the dust settles).
 
I rather suspect Russia has realised it can achieve regime change without firing a shot. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Russian influence was instrumental in both Trump and Brexit, the fallout from both events has been a significant destabilisation of the West. This creates fault lines which can be exploited.

Bannon's (or whoever is behind Bannon) approach seems to be not unlike the US/UK axis' concept of regime change in the Middle East, namely that you reduce the present regime to rubble, thus creating opportunities to exploit and influence whatever emerges from the ruins. Hopefully, we never get to find out whether Bannon's plans are more coherent in respect of dealing with the aftermath than the Bush/Blair axis was at dealing with the power vacuum post-Saddam (ie, whether he actually has one, rather than just planning to wing it as the dust settles).
Bannon has always been quite clear in his ambition to pull down the whole system - I've seen articles that have compared him with Lenin. To him, the traditional Republican establishment is every bit as much the enemy as is the Democratic Party. In Trump he has the perfect complement - a Republican who isn't really that at all, but who is prepared to go along with the Republican Party so long as it satisfies his needs, and to ignore it completely, when it doesn't. And it has to be said that he has succeeded. The Republicans are running scared of Trump's base. Can you imagine what the Republican reaction would have been if Obama had committed a fraction of the things that Trump has done, and which have elicited mainly silence from the Party? An interesting comparison of whoppers from today's NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
 
Can you imagine what the Republican reaction would have been if Obama had committed a fraction of the things that Trump has done, and which have elicited mainly silence from the Party? An interesting comparison of whoppers from today's NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/opinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

tones.

if we apply hegelian anaysis: when the whole system is a big lie, are lies within it not actually a certain type of truths? just be glad trumpies are not capable of this sort of "thinking".
 
#1 I rather suspect Russia has realised it can achieve regime change without firing a shot.

#2 Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Russian influence was instrumental in both Trump and Brexit, the fallout from both events has been a significant destabilisation of the West. This creates fault lines which can be exploited.

why are you asking us to assume something in #2 when you imply in #1 that it is a matter of fact?
 
why are you asking us to assume something #2 when you imply in #1 that it is a matter of fact?
Well, vuk, I didn't assert #1 as a matter of fact, I merely stated my opinion that it was a likely or plausible scenario.

Accordingly, and as would be good practice in any debate trying to solicit a wide range of views, I followed the line of argument in #2 without requiring the reader to necessarily agree with it from the outset.

Was this not clear? Given your apparent erudition, I'm surprised at your post. Or were you simply trying to get a rise out of me?
 
You don't need to defend yourself, spr, your meaning was quite clear to us plebs. Helps if you remember 98% of philosophy consists of arguing for the sake of it :)
 
Well, vuk, I didn't assert #1 as a matter of fact, I merely stated my opinion that it was a likely or plausible scenario.

"I rather suspect Russia has realised it can achieve regime change without firing a shot."

for russia to realize this, the assumption is that it was a truth waiting to be discovered or hypothesis that was tested and proven true. at the very least, can you not see the massive bias in how you're portraying things -- kind of like MSNBC?
 
Bannon has always been quite clear in his ambition to pull down the whole system - I've seen articles that have compared him with Lenin. To him, the traditional Republican establishment is every bit as much the enemy as is the Democratic Party. In Trump he has the perfect complement - a Republican who isn't really that at all, but who is prepared to go along with the Republican Party so long as it satisfies his needs, and to ignore it completely, when it doesn't. And it has to be said that he has succeeded.

Trump is the pathogen and the Republican Party the host. They will be damaged very badly by him before he's finished with them.
 
for russia to realize this, the assumption is that it was a truth waiting to be discovered or hypothesis that was tested and proven true. at the very least, can you not see the massive bias in how you're portraying things -- kind of like MSNBC?
How is it massive bias when I have taken reasonable steps to make it clear that this is merely my opinion. The opinion is not merely that the Russians may have noticed, but also that regime change may be possible without warfare. Do you need it explaining more clearly, or are you merely seeking clarification for the benefit of others less blessed than yourself?
 
tones.

if we apply hegelian anaysis: when the whole system is a big lie, are lies within it not actually a certain type of truths? just be glad trumpies are not capable of this sort of "thinking".
Hmm, you're getting towards the position of that well-known philosopher Pontius Pilate ("What is truth?"). In which case you're essentially arguing that all systems are "big lies", are you not? That political systems are at least partially based on fictions and myths is true (none more so than the US system with its concept of freedom and democracy for all - but then the US system is essentially a secular religion, which makes it a bit of an oddity). I think it boils down to the fact that we need these fictions and myths to some extent to build viable societies, especially when these societies grow into large nation-states, and so truth has to be judged within this framework. To advocate otherwise would seem to me to be advocating a Bannon-like approach. All very well, I guess, if your only object is demolition and that you'll be the big chief of whatever emerges from the wreckage.
 
you're still not getting it: yes it is all in the realm of your opinion. within that realm, the opinion in #1 is that russia may have "realized" something. that you are presenting as speculative. the thing that they have or have not realized is implied to be true. they either realized this truth or did not.

i'll give you another example:

I rather suspect bill and hillary have realized that they can keep carrying on with their fraudulent foundation now that the spotlight is all on trump.
 
Hmm, you're getting towards the position of that well-known philosopher Pontius Pilate ("What is truth?"). In which case you're essentially arguing that all systems are "big lies", are you not?

tones -- i thought the hegel bit made it clear i was joking. sorry if i msilead you into posting all that -- although it is a good post and i appreciate it.
 
you're still not getting it: yes it is all in the realm of your opinion. within that realm, the opinion in #1 is that russia may have "realized" something. that you are presenting as speculative. the thing that they have or have not realized is implied to be true. they either realized this truth or did not.

i'll give you another example:

I rather suspect bill and hillary have realized that they can keep carrying on with their fraudulent foundation now that the spotlight is all on trump.
Sorry, but I think that's some pretty convoluted joining up of dots you've got going there. Apologies if I'm missing something important. I suspect it's probably not important enough to derail this thread any further though, so shall we drop it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top