O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 08:53:02 +0000, Tom Gardner

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was an interview with a book author about tribalism.

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Tribes-Group-Instinct-Nations/dp/0399562850/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid15%20540231&sr=8-1&keywords=political+tribes+amy+chua&dpID51%V5U1EYoHL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

which would be interesting, except that the host started making Trump
insults for no reason, and the author joined in. Five minutes of that
was enough.

She lost one book sale.

TDS


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On 08.3.2018 ?. 04:43, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is possible that Trump himself did not collude, though unlikely.
It would be more than sufficient for Putin to have in the white house
a clueless person with an ego in need of soothing on a 5 minute basis.
Given the weak opposition they must have decided it was doable - and
they did it.

At the moment the US services are put in an unenviable position - they
know they have in charge someone put there by the Russians but they
cannot publicly admit this has happened, not as long as they don't
have to, this would officially make them the laughing stock of the
world.

Nobody who has not lived under the soviet regime can be perceptive
enough to grasp how they work (I'd much rather not have had the
"privilege" to acquire that perception). These people are liars
above all, it is a way of life. They are proud to be good enough
liars, they see this as part of a "game". To them success in life
does not mean making it by what you do; it only means making it
by cheating skillfully enough, they have grown up without ever
having been exposed to anything else.

The sad reality is that the evil empire does gather strength and
is, well, only biting back - for now.

Dimiter

======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/



Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Even Mueller concluded that the russkies did not sucessfully influence
the presidential election. Look it up.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On 08.3.2018 ?. 17:16, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

So they tried and failed but got what they wanted, I see.

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nobody knows what some Russians may have done, or what they wanted.
Mueller says that they promoted both Trump and Sanders, and at least
once worked against Trump. Their activities started before anyone knew
that Trump intended to run for President.

This sounds like a chaotic rumor mill to me. Mueller has indicted
Russians who he can't access, for doing things that make no sense.
This is nonsense and hysteria.

If you filter noise deliberately enough, you'll find what you want to
find. There's a lot of that going around.




--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:19:38 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Russians also sponsored Trump protest rallies, e.g.,
http://www.businessinsider.com/russians-organized-pro-anti-trump-rallies-to-sow-discord-2018-2

It seems Russians wanted to sow discord, which is why Democrats are so
upset--that's their job ('community organizing' and all that).

Cheers,
James Arthur

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:51:39 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sounds like a bunch of hackers, or several different bunches of
hackers, making trouble for fun. The actual effort, and effect, were
minor.

TDS

--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:51:39 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And of course the US would *never* take sides in the elections of any
other country!  That would be wrong.

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:51:43 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Whereas Republican gerrymandering and voter de-registration drives prevent discord from influencing who gets elected.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On 08.3.2018 ?. 20:51, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't know much if anything about internal US politics and whose job
is what but the Russians are quite certainly exactly after sowing
discord, division, hatred etc., what better way to weaken their
enemies. You won't believe the amount of troll posts only in
the comments under the news in Bulgarian news sites (95+% of all
posts). Probably the same elsewhere, they _do_ have the troll
factories and who know how many "subcontractors" etc., it is
cheap.
In Europe they push towards division between the EU states, boost as
much as they can euroscepticism etc., by how much they have influenced
the brexit vote is anybody's guess but they did push this way as
strongly as they could.
And then I remember once seeing something about Putin personally hating
Hillary for some reason (not sure what it was and just "pretty sure"
about the credibility of my memory though).

Dimiter


Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We have a gigantic supply of troll posts without needing expensive
imports. Someone, perhaps Russins, maybe even official Russians, spent
a couple million dollars making counter-effective Facebook and Twitter
posts, in an election where the Clintonists wasted over a billion
dollars.

The real story is how ineffective the Russians, or whoever, were.

The *real* story is how ineffective the Clinton campaign was, but the
lefty press prefers to blame evil foreigners.

This is a wonderful book:

http://tinyurl.com/yb542ptb

A beautiful example of another failure of expertise and the triumph of
instinct.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 2:45:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Trump did win, even if he lost the popular vote by some 62,984,825 to 65,853,516.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

65,853,516 votes doesn't say "ineffective". The electoral college vote does make it clear that the Clinton campaign should have put more effort into small states and under-educated voters.  
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or, in more realistic terms, another book designed to appeal to rich Republicans, who have more money to spend on books than the average Democrat.

John Larkin also likes "The Bell Curve" which was designed to appeal to the same demographic (which isn't all that good at critical thinking).

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Quoted text here. Click to load it
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:19:38 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s.
.

Not exactly true. The Russians didn't want Hillary Clinton in the White Hou
se because she'd been an effective secretary of state, which had inconvenie
nced them, so they didn't want her as president. It makes sense that they w
ould support her rivals - first Bernie sanders and then Donald Trump.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sure. Anything that make's Trump's presence in the White House a consequenc
e of Russian meddling in the US electoral process is a signal that you don'
t want to see, so you filter it out.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney



Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On 2018/03/08 7:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

This has not been stated by Mueller that I can find, rather it has been  
claimed by the POTUS and his VP:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-claim-mueller-found-no-collusion-is-literal-nonsense.html

https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-mueller-indictment-doesnt-allege-russians-swung-election

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/373855-pence-says-intel-community-concluded-russia-did-not-affect-outcome-of

If I am mistaken on this please feel free to share the public citation(s).

Even if the Russians did not swing election, hey sure seemed to be  
trying - and isn't that interesting? Don't your legal people need to get  
to the bottom of it?

And shouldn't the proper response from the White House be "No Comment"  
when these matters are still before the courts?

John

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html

Rosenstein said Friday that the indictment does not contain any
allegations that any Americans knowingly participated in the activity.
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a
knowing participant in this illegal activity," he said. "There is no
allegation in the indictment that the charge conduct altered the
outcome of the 2016 election."


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On 2018/03/08 8:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Have you ever heard the expression "Reading between the lines"?

While Rosenstein said 'the indictment does not contain' he did not say  
that the Russians were unsuccessful in trying to manipulate the US  
election, only that these indictments do not appear to be evidence or  
enough evidence to publicly say anything at that time.

https://www.gq.com/story/robert-mueller-russia-indictments

The investigation is still ongoing...

John

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which is equivalent in this particular case to TDS, Trump Derangement
Syndrome... reading what you want to read into the whitespace between
the lines.

Design something; you'll feel better.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And so far has produced basically nothing.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:26:01 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ans.
se
is.
d
ce
en
d-no-collusion-is-literal-nonsense.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ians-swung-election
Quoted text here. Click to load it
nity-concluded-russia-did-not-affect-outcome-of
Quoted text here. Click to load it
n(s).
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ction-interference/index.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not exactly. The indictment isn't the last one that the Mueller investigati
on could produce - it hasn't been shut down yet - and Mueller has yet to ta
lk to Trump. He may want to talk to him about what Trump is prepared to adm
it knowing about the Russian interventions in the election campaign, but he
 may also want to talk to him about the money-laundering that seems to have
 been going on before the election.

There's nothing particularly deranged about thinking that Trump might have  
been up to no good before he started running for president - he's admitted  
that he bribed people back then.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The evidence of Russian intervention in US elections isn't nothing, and it  
took a long time for that to get converted into an indictment.

Ken Starr was busy for several years before he produced his mole-hill.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:26:44 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it



That speaks to absence of evidence, but NOT to evidence of absence.
So, 'Mueller concluded' is a distortion, because Mueller hasn't  
in fact announced that (or any other similar) conclusion.

Generating fake news: -1 point.   Advising 'Look it up': +1 point.   So, net result: pointless.

Re: O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker
On 03/07/2018 09:43 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Cool facts: there are people that work in the media that are just as  
nasty and vindictive as Trump is, except that they're media executives  
instead of President.

When an abusive person starts shit with other abusive people, a  
shitstorm is the predictable result. Don Henley wrote a song about it:

<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-LFhqrNp7U




Site Timeline