In the last few weeks we have confirmation that Putin ordered the hacks via communications.

Trump still says Russia MAY have been involved, ignoring all credible intelligence.

&%)&*(_*%#

god, his response is so ****ing infuriating

Trump went there to chew gum and **** on the American IC and press and appears to have run out of gum.

Probably Tojo and Stalin.

Putin: "Donald darling, it was us. We hacked into your election. We wanted you to win my friend."

Trump: "I think you did. Could have been other people, could have been other countries. Nobody really knows."

lotsa heritage being celebrated in Poland today

guilty

I almost spit my coffee out at "We did some very heavy research."

Yes. Tons of mass media existed not to give a fair accounting of events but instead to do just that. Really up until WWII, the media landscape was far more partisan, far closer to naked and explicit propaganda, and everyone expected it to be so.

The notion of Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley and the network nightly news boys holding court and constraining the worst impulses of the country, and helping to shape and define how people viewed current events, and providing a non-partisan barometer on the condition of governance -- I'll grant there was probably some truth to that effect but it is worth pointing out THAT phenomenon was by no means the historical standard. It was the exception.

Also note, related, but not quite irrelevant: the early 19th century (~1790-1820) in the US was defined largely by at times was a ferocious battle (at least at the elite level) between Americans who favored France (like Jefferson) versus Americans who were claimed to be hopeless Anglophiles like Hamilton. Later in the 19th century as slavery became paramount, Americans viewed foreign policy increasingly through that dynamic: the war with Mexico, trade with Britain, etc. was colored entirely by what people thought about slavery expansion and later abolition. In the 20th century, there was a vibrant anarchist/left streak in America while elites grasped to laissez faire capitalist theories and countries seen as pushing back against socialism and later Communism.

Contrast with the immediate post-WWII period when America largely had a consensus about what our values were and where we stood in the world (democracy, capitalism) vis a vis the Soviet Union (socialist, totalitarian).

I think the biggest take away is that tons of Americans grew up in the post-war period, or their parents did, and our ideals about what's normal and what's expected have entirely been shaped by a period where partisanship was quieted, we shared a common enemy with clearly delineated values, resources were shared far more equitably (among whites anyway), economic growth was exceptional and broad, the interests of racial minorities largely ignored by whites, and the media was far more unified and less partisan. That is to say, a lot of our ideals and notions were shaped by a very, very unique time in history and I'm not convinced we've been able to divorce ourselves from a highly contextual environment that simply couldn't continue.

It seems like the ideological right has adapted far better than the left. The left -- or at least the dominant party that best represents it in the US -- seems almost made prisoner to these old norms and spends alot of time fretting about how they've been dismantled by the right. I think it's fair to say they've been hastened by the right and Trump but the left should take seriously that some of this may have been inevitable.

His only access to the CIA has been media reports. If he weren't a moron he'd at least pretend he's doing his job.

Also, he's really combating the Obama choked hypotheses that he once had.

Definitely some truth to this. Cross-posted from the Tragic Death thread:


https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/882962075991113729


https://twitter.com/fivefifths/statu...63763741302785

He's had people on it for months, the best people. You won't believe what they're finding believe me

aflame,

The idea that we'd all be muslims if we lived in saudi arabia or rednecks if we lived in mississippi is all well and good but there are still such things as objective facts even if half the country disagree. An all knowing and all powerful being is a logical impossibility, republican policies will have the effect of tens of thousands of extra people dying a year for the sake of a tax cut on the very wealthy. Everyone has opinions but republicans are denying a shared set of facts in a way that democrats generally don't. They aren't arguing for the merits of their positions given the facts of the matter they are saying we'll cover everyone and it'll be cheaper and great and the best healthcare you've ever seen MAGA!

The bolded may seem like a joke but it really is the underlying proposition behind Trumpism. Do we continue on a path largely based on facts and science, or do go down a darker path that is completely anti-reason, anti-knowledge, anti-enlightenment. It seems like a no-brainer that we should keep making progress, but you certainly have to wonder how so many people like aflametotheground keep picking the "Dark Ages" option as the best possible option.

Television. The production was owned by entertainment organizations, access controlled by the government, there were basically three competitors and it all had to be underwritten by large corporations.

It's amazing that there are people who watch something like this and go "yeah I totally see where your coming from Prez!"

Gaslighting doesn't really describe it anymore. It feels like I'm living in a Richard Brautigan book.

Einbert: I wouldnt take the sentence out of context. Im talking about how we come to chose our sides in politics, we know its to a great extent based on our moral intuitions. So im not saying that we shall go backwards to the middle ages. Im saying that humans will let their moral intuitions guide them in the political landscape. Our feelings are great at telling us what is important to us, our rationale is great at telling us what is true. Both are important, and neither one alone will lead you anywhere, you need both.

no

Sure, such a thing exists but:

1. They are generally much more well-meaning than the alt-right.
2. They have no power whereas literally the president of the US is now an alt-right guy.

A+. I was also just thinking after I wrote those posts that Frasier always *thinks* he has handled whatever situation with grace and aplomb, but really he just rambles through like a bit of a madman, making it through the day, but often the battle he was battling (with psychology) was completely disconnected from whatever real conflict was going on in business/society/politics or whatnot. He's his own centrist liberal Don Quixote, just like our modern Democratic leaders.

Are there any good books over the intersection of radio and US politics? It seems like it'd be place ripe for exploration.

Also subject to the fairness doctrine til '87

I don't know the exact context of this presser, but that seems like a terrible question to ask the POTUS when he's on stage with another world leader. Was there not a specific topic they were there to talk about? Or did Trump just say, "Hey Duda, let's go stand up there and let people just blurt out questions at us, yeah?"

Trump's response was not great, but that woman seems to be just as awful in the admittedly incomplete context of this clip.

I'm out of the loop. What is the end-game once she was successful in getting Trump to say the words, "Russia interfered with the US election"? If as she says, "everyone already knows" then ... what happens now that he's on record? Did they cut the part of the clip where she says, "Well, okay then" and smugly sits back down in her seat? Is that it? Or did this brave woman who finally nailed the POTUS down on the Russia issue start some chain of events that I'm unaware of?

Edit: Also, Mr. President, I will pay you 100 million Schrute bucks if you never say Obama's name again. Blaming the last guy is just awful. Eyes forward, please.

All these things are just objectively true.

Edit: The Senate one is arguable I guess, but I'd agree with it more than I'd disagree.

Trump on Russia.

i agree tilteddonkey. i did mention in a later post that i was not here to hammer the forum, i have had opinions like i mentioned myself. and some ppl still continue to have such opinions, its fine by me, i dont really care when i have to combat 100 people to be able to express that opinion.