Also In The News

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49860079

 

The latest, though as above, goodness only knows where it's all going to lead.

This is starting to look more and more like a smoking gun.

 

The Dems must surely wish they had kept their powder dry now chasing the frivolous Russia connections. This looks genuinely concerning but he'll be able to pass it off as a witch-hunt.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is starting to look more and more like a smoking gun.

 

The Dems must surely wish they had kept their powder dry now chasing the frivolous Russia connections. This looks genuinely concerning but he'll be able to pass it off as a witch-hunt.

It's certainly possible, yes - he's certainly got his supporter base sewn up, that's for sure.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49865774

 

And the latest.

[Guest MattP]

Not just blackface - he does the whole body

[MC Prussian]

On 29/09/2019 at 10:38, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49865774

 

And the latest.

Oh, look.

 

Russiagate - fraud.

Ukrainegate - fraud.

 

Let the Democrats search for the dirt they so desperately want, let them and their affiliated media outlets push for more "...gates", because by the time they realize there is nothing, the 2020 elections will have gone by, with Trump re-elected by a landslide.

 

The Democrats are a parody of what they once were. I used to have so much more sympathy and respect for them, but then along came Monica Lewinsky and it all took a turn for the worse.

[MC Prussian]

On 29/09/2019 at 11:13, MattP said:

Not just blackface - he does the whole body

Something tells me he will get re-elected regardless, as pitiful as that sounds. The other candidates are either weak, uncharismatic, too young or not ready yet.

But Maxime Bernier must be a valuable option next time around.

 

Liberals or Progressives are handled with soft gloves in matters like this - imagine the uproar if Stephen Harper had done that.

[Finnaldo]

On 29/09/2019 at 10:13, MattP said:

Not just blackface - he does the whole body

 

Fvcking hell what a state 

[Jattdogg]

4 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Fvcking hell what a state 

"Us" Canadians are the nicest people ever eh.

Edited 30 September 2019 by Jattdogg

[MC Prussian]

I bet these young white people are very proud of themselves - imagine if your sole purpose in life is blocking elderly people from crossing the street:

Wow. The courage!

 

Also: Canada, eh?

 

 

Beardy Man's a self-proclaimed Communist if you go by the shirt.

 

@Jattdogg: Any first-hand experience about what went down in Hamilton?

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[Finnaldo]

42 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I bet these young white people are very proud of themselves - imagine if your sole purpose in life is blocking elderly people from crossing the street:

Wow. The courage!

 

Disgusting behaviour, it's a shame a good cause such as anti-fascism is tarred by a minority of  people clearly looking to be aggressive and confrontational to innocent bystanders.

 

Was very surprised to see this in the comments though... 

 

   

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Oh, look.

 

Russiagate - fraud.

Ukrainegate - fraud.

 

Let the Democrats search for the dirt they so desperately want, let them and their affiliated media outlets push for more "...gates", because by the time they realize there is nothing, the 2020 elections will have gone by, with Trump re-elected by a landslide.

 

The Democrats are a parody of what they once were. I used to have so much more sympathy and respect for them, but then along came Monica Lewinsky and it all took a turn for the worse.

Tbh Prussian I don't know how you can state all that with as much certainty as you do, given the last couple of years have made a mockery of a lot of political predictions.

 

As I said to Matt last page though, one thing I will say with a modicum of certainty however is that if Trump does win four more years (provided the impeachment stuff doesn't end up going all the way which I do think is really unlikely), then it's four years lost on a time-frame we can't really afford to be spending four years on and as the far-right will continue to march and intimidate as they believe he has given them carte blanche to do so (despite his supposed efforts to reign them in) there will likely be more blood on the streets and in schools before it's all done.

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Tbh Prussian I don't know how you can state all that with as much certainty as you do, given the last couple of years have made a mockery of a lot of political predictions.

 

As I said to Matt last page though, one thing I will say with a modicum of certainty however is that if Trump does win four more years (provided the impeachment stuff doesn't end up going all the way which I do think is really unlikely), then it's four years lost on a time-frame we can't really afford to be spending four years on and as the far-right will continue to march and intimidate as they believe he has given them carte blanche to do so (despite his supposed efforts to reign them in) there will likely be more blood on the streets and in schools before it's all done.

You're doing the exact same thing as me, stating your opinion, and that's fine by me.

 

I just don't see how four more years of Donald Trump equal "four lost years" as you put it. That we cannot be sure of. The US have seen a great surge in economical progress under Trump, he has managed to bring the unemployment rate even further down (which is no easy feat in itself; kudos to Obama to starting the process).

The Democrats to me also seem mainly hell-bent on kicking him out of office because they know the four years will give him the time necessary to go after the Clintons and other rotten apples in the Democratic party that have displayed questionable behaviour leading up to the 2016 election and ever since.

 

And in the same post you hint at a collusion between the far-right and the Trump administration (or on a global scale, you're not precise enough here). I think that is a fatal logical error on your behalf. And populist. Sure, we need to be aware of extremism - on all sides. The fact that you're excluding left-wing extremism (be it anarchist, communist, socialist, socio-ecological, and whatnot) indicates a somewhat distinct lack of awareness in that regard.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

You're doing the exact same thing as me, stating your opinion, and that's fine by me.

 

I just don't see how four more years of Donald Trump equal "four lost years" as you put it. That we cannot be sure of. The US have seen a great surge in economical progress under Trump, he has managed to bring the unemployment rate even further down (which is no easy feat in itself; kudos to Obama to starting the process).

The Democrats to me also seem mainly hell-bent on kicking him out of office because they know the four years will give him the time necessary to go after the Clintons and other rotten apples in the Democratic party that have displayed questionable behaviour leading up to the 2016 election and ever since.

 

And in the same post you hint at a collusion between the far-right and the Trump administration (or on a global scale, you're not precise enough here). I think that is a fatal logical error on your behalf. And populist. Sure, we need to be aware of extremism - on all sides. The fact that you're excluding left-wing extremism (be it anarchist, communist, socialist, socio-ecological, and whatnot) indicates a somewhat distinct lack of awareness in that regard.

Apologies for my lack of clarity, by "four lost years" I am of course referring to environmental policy. I can understand if that is low on your concern list as far as policy goes.

 

Evidently I wasn't being clear with my second point, either (though I did put in effort to ensure there wouldn't be the kind of misunderstanding you have taken) - there isn't collusion between the far right and Trump that can be proven, but the far right certainly believe they have freer reign under his administration, as the increasing amount of activity by them bears out. I also did make reference to those who would oppose them by implication when I mentioned blood on the streets because you can be sure they will be opposed, but that might have been less clear.

 

Isn't it funny that no one had heard of organized anti fascist activity in the US until the last couple of years? Almost as if they didn't need to exist until then...

 

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I bet these young white people are very proud of themselves - imagine if your sole purpose in life is blocking elderly people from crossing the street:

Wow. The courage!

 

Also: Canada, eh?

 

 

Beardy Man's a self-proclaimed Communist if you go by the shirt.

 

@Jattdogg: Any first-hand experience about what went down in Hamilton?

Jeeez my canadian home town. To be honest didnt even know this happened  outside of the match ive been busy with home renovations so didnt even hear about this.

 

I do know there has been protests in Hamilton before but like anywhere you get these crazies who dont represent good that show up to cause problems. Its like they are paid actors.

 

I may not agree with bernier but he has a right to put his platform out there and its up to the voters to send a giant fck off if they dislike his policies.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Unfortunately, I think blackface will still win the election as well, if he was going to lose you would think he would be comfortably behind in the polls at this point.

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Apologies for my lack of clarity, by "four lost years" I am of course referring to environmental policy. I can understand if that is low on your concern list as far as policy goes.

 

Evidently I wasn't being clear with my second point, either (though I did put in effort to ensure there wouldn't be the kind of misunderstanding you have taken) - there isn't collusion between the far right and Trump that can be proven, but the far right certainly believe they have freer reign under his administration, as the increasing amount of activity by them bears out. I also did make reference to those who would oppose them by implication when I mentioned blood on the streets because you can be sure they will be opposed, but that might have been less clear.

 

Isn't it funny that no one had heard of organized anti fascist activity in the US until the last couple of years? Almost as if they didn't need to exist until then...

 

Proof of the increasing amount of activity by far-right entities, please.

 

And then put it in context in comparison to far-left extremists activities.

 

Your last question can be easily answered - Social Media. We are now living in the day and age of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, and Smartphones. Information is much more easily and readily available, on a plethora of platforms and in much larger quantities also.

 

Also, with regards to Antifa in the US, they are a relatively young phenomenon, anyway:

Quote

One of the earliest antifa groups in the U.S. was Rose City Antifa, which was formed in Portland, Oregon in 2007.^[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Proof of the increasing amount of activity by far-right entities, please.

 

And then put it in context in comparison to far-left extremists activities.

 

Your last question can be easily answered - Social Media. We are now living in the day and age of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, and Smartphones. Information is much more easily and readily available, on a plethora of platforms and in much larger quantities also.

 

Also, with regards to Antifa in the US, they are a relatively young phenomenon, anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Certainly.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859

 

A couple of graphs in there bear things out. Of course, there is no such thing as "far-right" entities, because they're all lone wolves, mentally unstable and not connected by any particular ideology, right?

 

As far as far-left activity goes, the only noteworthy incident in the last few years (by the standards of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010–present anyway) seems to be the James Hodgkinson shooting incident. Of course, I would guess that there's a fair amount more activity than all that, but it seems rather more limited to words rather than deeds (by comparison to the Far Right, Andy Ngo is of course one figure that proves the hands aren't completely clean).

 

I'm unsure about the reference to social - are you saying because of social media these groups are being reported more and are more well-known? Even before the age of the smartphone anyone of a mind could check records with respect to such incidents and you'd like to hope the authorities were pretty good at keeping records on who was doing what and what their reasoning was, so I'm not sure why the link between increased anti-fascist activity and social media it, if you'd care to clarify?

 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859

 

A couple of graphs in there bear things out. Of course, there is no such thing as "far-right" entities, because they're all lone wolves, mentally unstable and not connected by any particular ideology, right?

 

As far as far-left activity goes, the only noteworthy incident in the last few years (by the standards of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010–present anyway) seems to be the James Hodgkinson shooting incident. Of course, I would guess that there's a fair amount more activity than all that, but it seems rather more limited to words rather than deeds (by comparison to the Far Right, Andy Ngo is of course one figure that proves the hands aren't completely clean).

 

I'm unsure about the reference to social - are you saying because of social media these groups are being reported more and are more well-known? Even before the age of the smartphone anyone of a mind could check records with respect to such incidents and you'd like to hope the authorities were pretty good at keeping records on who was doing what and what their reasoning was, so I'm not sure why the link between increased anti-fascist activity and social media it, if you'd care to clarify?

 

The BBC link provide proves little to nothing to substantiate your claim about a rise in "right-wing extremism".

In Germany, for instance, albeit the right-wing incidents being larger in total, the tendency indicates that left-wing extremism is on the rise and the counterpart on the right declining.

The EU numbers for 2017 clearly state that left-wing extremists as well as Jihadis and separatists are a bigger threat than right-wing extremism.

The UK numbers cited, for example, refer to "counter-extremism support", but not actual numbers with regards to criminal acts or planned attacks. I find it strange for these schematics to be included, as they divert from the main issue.

The US numbers are sketchy, now suddenly refer to "deaths caused" and you can see that it's quite a stretch to say there's a tendency of an increase in general when there's gap years without a single death. Also, 86 incidents with 64 deaths in a country with close to 330 million people is still a thankfully very low number and indicates that the authorities are competent enough  to deal with the issue - imagine all the plots that could be silenced before their execution.

The link also states that different NGOs and government institutions use different parameters to come to their conclusions, so that's all a bit confusing and worrying at the same time.

 

The Washington Post blows into a similar horn

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/02/is-right-wing-terrorism-violence-rise/

 

Also, no more links with regards to left-wing extremism specifically?

Interestingly enough, there is little to no data available. I find that odd.

In the UK, for example, the public have been waiting for more than half a year now for an official report to be released:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/10/home-office-urged-to-release-leftwing-extremist-report

 

Of course, the ideal scenario is for all extremist occurrences to one day get down to 0, but that is wishful thinking.

 

You asked me about the perceived increase in profile of Antifa in recent years - and I have given you several reasons as to why that is, mainly technology (internet and smartphones leading to easier accessibility to videos/photos/information in general) and the fact that Antifa are a relatively young phenomenon (in the US).

 

You do remember that newspapers for instance had a hard time adapting to the internet? Most of them joined either relatively late or poorly (free information/paywall issue for example). Information in the internet's infancy (around 1995) or some ten, fifteen years ago was still much sparse than it is today, the internet and the amount of data available keeps growing and growing.

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The BBC link provide proves little to nothing to substantiate your claim about a rise in "right-wing extremism".

In Germany, for instance, albeit the right-wing incidents being larger in total, the tendency indicates that left-wing extremism is on the rise and the counterpart on the right declining.

The EU numbers for 2017 clearly state that left-wing extremists as well as Jihadis and separatists are a bigger threat than right-wing extremism.

The UK numbers cited, for example, refer to "counter-extremism support", but not actual numbers with regards to criminal acts or planned attacks. I find it strange for these schematics to be included, as they divert from the main issue.

The US numbers are sketchy, now suddenly refer to "deaths caused" and you can see that it's quite a stretch to say there's a tendency of an increase in general when there's gap years without a single death. Also, 86 incidents with 64 deaths in a country with close to 330 million people is still a thankfully very low number and indicates that the authorities are competent enough  to deal with the issue - imagine all the plots that could be silenced before their execution.

The link also states that different NGOs and government institutions use different parameters to come to their conclusions, so that's all a bit confusing and worrying at the same time.

 

The Washington Post blows into a similar horn

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/02/is-right-wing-terrorism-violence-rise/

 

Also, no more links with regards to left-wing extremism specifically?

Interestingly enough, there is little to no data available. I find that odd.

In the UK, for example, the public have been waiting for more than half a year now for an official report to be released:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/10/home-office-urged-to-release-leftwing-extremist-report

 

Of course, the ideal scenario is for all extremist occurrences to one day get down to 0, but that is wishful thinking.

 

You asked me about the perceived increase in profile of Antifa in recent years - and I have given you several reasons as to why that is, mainly technology (internet and smartphones leading to easier accessibility to videos/photos/information in general) and the fact that Antifa are a relatively young phenomenon (in the US).

 

You do remember that newspapers for instance had a hard time adapting to the internet? Most of them joined either relatively late or poorly (free information/paywall issue for example). Information in the internet's infancy (around 1995) or some ten, fifteen years ago was still much sparse than it is today, the internet and the amount of data available keeps growing and growing.

As we're referring to the US in conversation here, then yes, the US numbers are what I'm talking about - and the second graph down shows a rather clear increase in that regard. You asked for evidence of increased far-right activity, it is there - whether it's overall a high or low number wasn't a point that was raised until right now. I think the data supports that there has been a rise in far-right activity, but you clearly disagree and clearly feel that there's enough leeway in the data to suggest otherwise, so fair enough.

 

I had some trouble finding reliable data on left-wing extremism too, hence my reliance on just one link and rather tenuous datasets. It is an odd one.

 

I'm still not sure exactly how increasing access to information dissemination can be directly linked to a uptick in anti-fascist activity, but once again - fair enough.

[MC Prussian]

When your attempt at exposing a then 16-year old for a stupid statement on Twitter backfires badly:

https://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/some-absolute-toad-from-the-des-moines-register-digs-up-tweets-from-carson-king-the-iowa-state-kid-who-raised-1-million-for-the-childrens-hospital-and-plans-to-expose-him-internet-beats-him-t

 

Morale of the story:

 

Don't do Twitter. Or any other Social Media platform. Or start erasing posts now.

And don't start studying modern "journalism".

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49887733

 

Whatever happens, it is making for compelling viewing.

 

[MC Prussian]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49887733

 

Whatever happens, it is making for compelling viewing.

Yes, seeing the Democrats getting more and more desperate to get any sort of dirt on Trump in the next 13 months will indeed be entertaining.

 

Seeking help from foreign countries with regards to solving domestic issues is nothing new - it's called a(n intelligence) partnership. Didn't know that was a criminal act.

Seems to me the CIA and the Democrats want to reshape what "regular global political contact" entails.

Are we now going back to JFK and condemn his secret talks with Khrushchev, for instance?

 

I mean, they already succeeded in changing the criteria to what a whistleblower is:

Quote

The (Ukraine) complaint did not contain firsthand accounts of the controversial phone call, only secondhand and thirdhand information.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-identified-as-cia-officer-who-was-detailed-to-white-house

 

Quote

Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.

The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/

 

Instead of policymaking, let's concentrate all efforts on getting rid of a president who was officially elected.

 

Russia, Ukraine, Australia, ...

 

Which country's next you reckon?

Edited 1 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Yes, seeing the Democrats getting more and more desperate to get any sort of dirt on Trump in the next 13 months will indeed be entertaining.

 

Seeking help from foreign countries with regards to solving domestic issues is nothing new - it's called a(n intelligence) partnership. Didn't know that was a criminal act.

Seems to me the CIA and the Democrats want to reshape what "regular global political contact" entails.

Are we now going back to JFK and condemn his secret talks with Khrushchev, for instance?

 

I mean, they already succeeded in changing the criteria to what a whistleblower is:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-identified-as-cia-officer-who-was-detailed-to-white-house

 

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/

 

Instead of policymaking, let's concentrate all efforts on getting rid of a president who was officially elected.

 

Russia, Ukraine, Australia, ...

 

Which country's next you reckon?

That's interesting, never read "discrediting a domestic political opponent" as "solving domestic issues" before. Interesting euphemism. I'm sure Kennedy was on the blower to Krushchev consistently looking for intel that would defeat Nixon (actually Nixon making those exact same phonecalls himself about a decade later isn't all that farfetched, come to that).

 

Given how the last few years have made a mockery of a lot of "certain" political opinions and predictions, we'll see how this post ages over the next year or two and how it all plays out.

 

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tapped up the UK for help, too.

Edited 1 October 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's interesting, never read "discrediting a domestic political opponent" as "solving domestic issues" before. Interesting euphemism. I'm sure Kennedy was on the blower to Krushchev consistently looking for intel that would defeat Nixon (actually Nixon making those exact same phonecalls himself about a decade later isn't all that farfetched, come to that).

 

Given how the last few years have made a mockery of a lot of "certain" political opinions and predictions, we'll see how this post ages over the next year or two and how it all plays out.

 

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tapped up the UK for help, too.

If that were true (not just, but here in the case of Trump), you'd have a point.

 

Trump isn't per se after Joe Biden, he's after his son Hunter. And Burisma. That Joe Biden is implicated sheds a bad light on him also, yes.

We cannot be sure that it is "discrediting" what Trump does - you could equally say he doesn't need to do that at all, since Joe Biden does it all by himself already, based on what we know about the deal when he was vice president under Obama.

 

Besides, I would be very surprised if "Sleepy" Joe Biden - closing in on 78 (!) by then - were the Democrats' nominee in 2020 in the first place.

My guess it'll be either Harris or Warren. Yikes.

Edited 1 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

If that were true (not just, but here in the case of Trump), you'd have a point.

 

Trump isn't per se after Joe Biden, he's after his son Hunter. And Burisma. That Joe Biden is implicated sheds a bad light on him also, yes.

We cannot be sure that it is "discrediting" what Trump does - you could equally say he doesn't need to do that at all, since Joe Biden does it all by himself already, based on what we know about the deal when he was vice president under Obama.

 

Besides, I would be very surprised if "Sleepy" Joe Biden - closing in on 78 (!) by then - were the Democrats' nominee in 2020 in the first place.

My guess it'll be either Harris or Warren. Yikes.

Oh yes, there's a whole bunch of implausible deniability here, once again - politics runs on it. Of course, the inference is reasonably clear - discredit Biden by saying his son is involved in bad stuff - but, you know, don't actually say that because then you can deny it later.

 

FWIW I'm hoping that Biden isn't the nominee either so him getting caught in the crossfire here doesn't bother me all that much, and I think it will be Warren who wins the nomination...but once again, predictions about it all are frankly a mugs game right now IMO.