US Politics VI - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-22-2018, 12:02 PM   #581
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,508
Local Time: 11:17 PM
I think we're about 4-6 weeks away from Trump firing Mueller.
__________________

BEAL is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 12:03 PM   #582
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Now that I’ve gone back and read it again, I agree.

Nick, I hope you can take a minute to pause and reflect on how poorly/condescending it comes across when you attempt to lecture somebody on their homeland and heritage, all while completely misrepresenting their argument.
"Lecture someone on their homeland and heritage?"

With all due respect, I provided links to Human Rights Watch reports. And I certainly didn't say anything about anyone's "heritage". And sorry, but if someone is going to say something that's flat out wrong, I don't see the issue with providing the facts. It's fine that LN7 has an Egyptian heritage, but that doesn't make every word he says about the country accurate and sacrosanct. Any more than someone born in the US is an expert on America and can't be challenged on something they say about that country. And again, I never said a word about his "heritage".

And lets remember, I'v been told to "eat shit" by Headache (who seems to have a license to attack and harass on this forum) in this discussion, and that I don't know what I'm talking about by LN7. So if you're looking for condescending attitudes, there's plenty to be found here. This feels a bit like tone policing to me. And again, the suggestion that lectured anyone about their "heritage" is just false. Why don't you have a look at LN7 (who as far as I can see lives in Texas) lecturing Mama Cass about life in France.

There's plenty condescending language that's been thrown my way, if tone is an issue. I can certainly provide links to that, and the personal insults.

And I don't think I misrepresented anyones argument, as I'll make clear below. But if I did that, it certainly wasn't my intent. Can you show me which argument I misrepresented, specifically, and how?

I don't mean this to challenge what you're saying as a mod, but to defend myself.

Nonetheless, you said let it drop, so I did. Now you're saying I should respond, so I will, point by point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Second: write response based upon nick66 interpretation of what "speaking out" is
Here's what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
If I were an atheist male in Egypt, I would denounce the Muslim majority for oppressing women and the Christian minority. Of fucking course.
I said that doing so could land you in prison...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
I'm saying that speaking out in the way you suggested, could (and probably would) land you in prison in Egypt these days, depending on how vocal you were and how much your criticism was aimed at the government (criticism of which is strictly illegal). And you couldn't speak out against the treatment of women & Christians without speaking out against the government.

Read Human Rights Watch's report on Egypt. It's not pretty.
I pointed to reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Freedom house (not "Google links") supporting this assertion, which prove that any criticism of the Government and their polices in Egypt is being met with brutal suppression and arrest. The reports are not vague on this point. I work in international human rights, something I've mentioned here many times before, so this isn't particularly new to me. I don't need Google.

As far as "speaking out" goes, I assumed you meant speaking out so that people can hear you, meaning those in power, where your "speaking out" would mean something. Did you mean it in another way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Have you ever been to Egypt? Do you think I'm here defending Egypt? Based upon your response, and upon your prior posts, you seem fixated on the idea that liberal folks defend the wrongdoings of foreign cultures and nations. Just my take though, I won't say that's how you actually feel.
I've been to Egypt many times, though not for work mostly as a tourist. And not since 2011, I won't economically support the regime there.

And I never said you were defending Egypt. Not a single time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Anywho, you brought up LGBT issues in Egypt. Which aren't the same as religion and gender. You're attempting to explain not only my heritage and fatherland to me, but now you're attempting to explain how sexuality in said fatherland works. Do you think you know how that goes better than I do? I gay first generation descendant from Egypt? Nobody cares that you know how to google things, dude.
Well I quoted a report on how you can get in trouble speaking out for LGBT's in Egypt...this is an example of the Government's absolute intolerance for dissent. If you think they're more tolerant of criticism of their policies towards Christians and women (they're not, at least according to human rights organisations), we can discuss that as well. It would involve my linking to more reports from human rights organisations, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
You're attempting to explain not only my heritage and fatherland to me, but now you're attempting to explain how sexuality in said fatherland works. Do you think you know how that goes better than I do? I gay first generation descendant from Egypt? Nobody cares that you know how to google things, dude.
I didn't say anything about your "heritage". That's patently absurd. Show me where I said anything about your "heritage". You said if you were an atheist in Egypt that you'd speak out about the treatment of women and Christians there, I said that it could land you in jail, you then said this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Dude, you don't know anything about Egypt. Stop pretending like you do. That's total bullshit, you would not "most likely be in jail."
So you claimed I "don't know anything about Egypt" (which isn't true) then said it was bullshit that speaking out like that would likely land you in jail, and I provided the factual basis for my assertion, demonstrating that it's not "bullshit".

Now, LN7, you can respond to this, or drop it, either is fine with me.

Diemen, if LN7 does respond, should I reply, or should we really drop it. I'm not being sarcastic, this is a genuine question, because inevitably, someone else will chime in on this response with cheap shots before all is said and done.
__________________

Nick66 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 12:19 PM   #583
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,439
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
blah blah blah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
and that I don't know what I'm talking about by LN7.
When you quote me and start responding to my points of conversation in a fashion that suggests I don't know what I'm talking about... but the reality is that you've merely interpreted my words to your liking, I would say you're either trolling or you don't know what you're talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
And again, the suggestion that lectured anyone about their "heritage" is just false. Why don't you have a look at LN7 (who as far as I can see lives in Texas) lecturing Mama Cass about life in France.
mama casa is of British origin and has lived her life in France. I am of American origin and I lived in France. You can google irrelevant facts and make statements like this that seem relevant to your argument / your attempts at defamation of character all you want. This quote right here is a *perfect* example of you construing things to portray someone in a negative light so as to bolster your own argument. I'm entitled to my opinions based upon living in France, just as I have real world experience with Egyptian women and men alike, fresh off the boat and still in Egypt. And of the Christian minority. And of the Muslim majority. And you have what? A link about something that isn't relevant?

Anyways, I'm working right now, so I'll address the rest of your post later.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-22-2018, 12:50 PM   #584
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,132
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
I think we're about 4-6 weeks away from Trump firing Mueller.
I think we're closer than that, actually
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 01:12 PM   #585
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

You can google irrelevant facts and make statements like this that seem relevant to your argument / your attempts at defamation of character all you want.
Woah, dude. Him thinking you’re wrong and arguing his point is hardly defamation of character.

Quote:
you construing things to portray someone in a negative light
In fairness, this is not something unique to Nick in this argument.
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 02:38 PM   #586
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,439
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Woah, dude. Him thinking you’re wrong and arguing his point is hardly defamation of character.



In fairness, this is not something unique to Nick in this argument.


I intended "defamation of character" in a very sarcastic'y lawyer speak. His intention of bringing up that event was to display that I did the same thing that he is doing. First, we all know that's weak sauce logical fallacy and not an argument. Second, it's unfair to equate the two events, because they're explicitly not the same. I was telling mama casa my views based upon my experience. He's telling me about Egypt based upon a link about stuff that isn't what we are talking about.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-22-2018, 03:28 PM   #587
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,293
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I was telling mama casa my views based upon my experience.
meh mostly you were telling me that pretty much everything i was saying was not true
mama cass is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 03:53 PM   #588
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,562
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Oh look, the Dow is plummeting.
Danny Boy is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 04:08 PM   #589
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,132
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Who needs money in their retirement fund?
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 04:16 PM   #590
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,562
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Andrew McCabe.
Danny Boy is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 04:47 PM   #591
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,439
Local Time: 07:17 PM
US Politics VI

Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
meh mostly you were telling me that pretty much everything i was saying was not true


Not based upon my experiences 🤷🏻
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-22-2018, 04:59 PM   #592
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Mark Penn, who was the Clinton's long time pollster & confidante, and ran HRC's 2008 Presidential run, has a new book out (about microtrends). He says some salacious things about the Clinton's "open marriage", which I don't care about, but what he said about the Russians supposedly swinging the election via Facebook caught my eye...

Quote:
''Today you can sit down with an impressionable elite - a Harvard-educated lawyer, for example - and they know with absolute certainty that somehow Trump was laundering money with the Russians in exchange for help in the election.

'They have no evidence for these claims and yet they 'know' it just as strongly as elites once believed the earth was flat.

'So did the Russians need money? How, when $2.4billion was spent on the election campaign, would $100,000 worth of Facebook ads make a difference?

'It's illogical, and yet perhaps 40 per cent of those reading this paragraph have come to believe it, based on reports of completely classified un-knowable information. They just know it.'
On another note, apparently John Dowd, one of the more prominent members of Trump's legal team, has resigned. Dowd was one of the people pushing for cooperation with the special counsel, and IMO this probably doesn't bode well about what the President is thinking along these lines. Either Trump is seriously (and foolishly) considering firing Mueller, or at a minimum he's going to have a much more aggressive strategy of attack.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 05:38 PM   #593
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 05:17 PM
Trump is an imbecile. This sort of trade war-mongering could realistically cause a totally avoidable recession.
digitize is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 05:44 PM   #594
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,132
Local Time: 06:17 PM
So here's the problem.

I'm allegedly in marketing. I run a small department within a rather large company.

I cut our advertising budget by 80% by focusing on paid Google and Facebook ads rather than outdated and crazy expensive tv, radio and print. Also focused on free advertising via social. And my revenue this year in my little department doubled the revenue from last year with months to go.

With print, tv, radio I am hoping that my message gets out. I can make sure the ad shown when the audience I'm trying to reach is probably watching, but I can't control whether or not they actually see it. And it's expensive as fuck.

With Google or Facebook I can dictate the age, gender, net worth, age of kids, hobbies and interests, and geographic location of those who see my ads, for a fraction of the price, and guarantee that it shows up on their screen or phone. I can make an ad show up on the phone if anyone in my demo who walks within a certain distance of our offices.

And this doesn't include anything that we do simply by tweeting something out and allowing followers to retweet, which of course is free.

So someone can debate whether or not the Russians had any influence on the election all they want. They can make valid points that what they did had a minimal effect.

But to say that it had minimal effect because they didn't spend enough money is horse shit.

Let's say the Russians didn't even do a thing, and it's all made up.

Ok. Trump still spent a fraction of what Clinton spent. Clearly he was able to get a bigger bang for his buck than she was.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 05:47 PM   #595
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Trump is an imbecile. This sort of trade war-mongering could realistically cause a totally avoidable recession.
I've been using "buffoon", but imbecile is an oldie but goodie the works just as well.

You'd think he'd try to do everything in his power to keep the economy humming along, because if anything is going to save the GOP in November, it's that (and even a strong economy probably won't be enough).
Nick66 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 05:54 PM   #596
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,457
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Mark Penn, who was the Clinton's long time pollster & confidante, and ran HRC's 2008 Presidential run, has a new book out (about microtrends). He says some salacious things about the Clinton's "open marriage", which I don't care about, but what he said about the Russians supposedly swinging the election via Facebook caught my eye....


that quite comes from this article, which i read too:

Clintons have 'at least a one-way open marriage', pollster says | Daily Mail Online

one of the big lessons of politics is that money doesn't really matter, or it doesn't always matter. that some candidates outspend their opponents and still lose. the big lesson of the week with CA is that data matters, so $100,000 on Facebook well-placed, targeted, and timed might be a much better use of money than millions on TV ads.

also, Mark Penn isn't held in terribly high regard these days, and this books seems to be some score settling with the Clintons. it's probably not the best idea to use him as a way to pave the way for the inevitable "I told you so" posts that may follow anything less than Mueller personally walking Trump out of the White House in cuffs, that you keep telling us that we're all expecting to happen and will be crushed and blindsided when it doesn't.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 06:02 PM   #597
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
one of the big lessons of politics is that money doesn't really matter, or it doesn't always matter. that some candidates outspend their opponents and still lose. the big lesson of the week with CA is that date matters, so $100,000 on Facebook well-placed, targeted, and timed might be a much better use of money than millions on TV ads.
This is no doubt true, but TV has nothing to do with it. The Clintons had their aggressive own social media campaign, supposedly the top minds in the business.

So if Trump's people were smarter and more targeted with less resources, or even the Russians were, whose problem is that? There's nothing illegal about trying to influence people via social media. And again, if Clinton spent more money on TV, and in the wrong states, that's on her and her campaign. Her campaign made huge deal about their social media operation, and loads of articles were published gushing about the cutting edge minds running it. Of course, all that changed after she lost.

Don't mistake me, I don't like the idea of Russians trolling Facebook anymore than you do. But let's put it in perspective. Those Russian ads were effective, and deceptive, because they looked pretty much indistinguishable from "legitimate" ads with fake news put out by fringe elements. If American democracy can truly be subverted because 16 Russians trolled on Facebook and Twitter with 100K (when Clinton and Trump spent north of 80 mil on social media), then we've got real problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
also, Mark Penn isn't held in terribly high regard these days, and this books seems to be some score settling with the Clintons.
Not well regarded by who? The Clintons? I've always thought Penn was a bit of a wanker, and no doubt he has a score to settle w/the Clintons. Doesn't mean he's not right here. And progressives have always hated Penn, going back to the 2008 campaign. That's nothing new.

Also, I'm not making any predictions as to what will or won't happen with this investigation. My point all along is that we don't know (which is Penn's point as well). People act so certain but it's all speculation at this point based on very limited evidence. And actually it's more than speculation...more like, wishful thinking.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 06:04 PM   #598
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,457
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
This is no doubt true, but TV has nothing to do with it. The Clintons had their aggressive own social media campaign, supposedly the top minds in the business. They outspent Trump, and certainly outspent the Russians.



So if Trump's people were smarter and more targeted with less resources, or even the Russians were, whose problem is that? There's nothing illegal about trying to influence people via social media. And again, if Clinton spent more money on TV, and in the wrong states, that's on her and her campaign.



Don't mistake me, I don't like the idea of Russians trolling Facebook anymore than you do. But let's put it in perspective. Those Russian ads were effective, and deceptive, because they looked pretty much indistinguishable from "legitimate" ads with fake news put out by fringe elements. If American democracy can truly be subverted because 16 Russians trolled on Facebook and Twitter, then we've got real problems.



It renders Penn’s point about spending moot. Which is why no one hires him anymore.

We do have problems. Social media needs to regulate itself, and Democrats need to hire better people. They’ve always been super bad at this kind of stuff.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 06:13 PM   #599
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
It renders Penn’s point about spending moot.
Not really. Where's the evidence that the 100K the Russians spent was more effective than the tens of millions HRC spent on social media? Yes, Trump won, but there's no evidence that it was because of those Russian's ads.

That's one of those things people are so sure about, because it's easy to say Clinton lost because Russian ads. But that's an assumption that's unsupported by the evidence (as of now).
Nick66 is offline  
Old 03-22-2018, 06:17 PM   #600
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,457
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Not really. Where's the evidence that the 100K the Russians spent was more effective than the tens of millions HRC spent on social media?



Yes, Trump won, but there's no evidence that it was because of those Russians ads.


The attention the Trump campaign knew to give Wisconsin, say, in the final week seems like good enough evidence.

You’re asking for something that no one could ever really give you, but the fact that he won an electoral college victory through three states involving 70,000 voters while at the same time losing the popular vote by 3m makes it seem self evident that the social media campaign was money well spent.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×