DescentBB

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ar/605530/

Some good investigative reporting, but they also miss some bits.

For instance, nobody here doubts woodchip is a God fearing American citizen. But he is also basically a mindless robo-troll in the conservative disinformation campaign, he willingly and knowingly contributes to this machine that attacks the press and parrots lies and falsehoods. One of the biggest dangers of this campaign aren't the original bots/sources/lies, but the amplification it all receives from the loyal conservative base supporters. They aren't being so much controlled by bots and trolls, they are the bots and trolls and they love it because they want to believe all the lies and disinformation, it is like a cult and a drug and they are all addicts. Any time we press woodchip with something he disagrees with, he attacks it and dismisses it "fake news!". I wouldn't be particularly surprised if you isolated him from the fox news/conservative disinformation sphere for a few days that he would experience some actual physical withdrawal symptoms.

Basically, we're fucked because Mark Zuckerberg thinks a trillion dollars is much cooler than a billion dollars.

There are many definitions of fascism. One that I like is when the techniques of a colonial power are turned inwards. We legally restrict the CIA from acting like this domestically for good reason. The First Amendment rightly prevents such restrictions from governing private citizens, but that makes it all the more important to call it exactly what it is; Fascism.

Krom wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:14 amSome good investigative reporting, but they also miss some bits.

Ah yes, this article has been popping up all over. It's a good start, but I feel like it doesn't go far enough to show how seriously f*cked we are.

It only briefly talks about deepfakes and similar technologies, but it doesn't point out how most of the population not only doesn't know of the existence of this tech, but some people can't actually comprehend it. My friend who will soon turn 80 cannot understand that video and speech synthesis are so sophisticated that someone can create a completely artificial news clip of a politician saying whatever its creator wants them to. My friend has no frame of reference to grok this, he can barely use a modern television. He'll never look at a video and think "hey, is this fake?" My friend will probably vote for Trump again this year.

The only thing that makes me feel Ok about this tech is that it will eventually be accessible to the general public, which will bring more awareness and force some changes. But in the meantime, there will be a lot of damage done.

Hell, my 88 year old father doesn't even know what computer animation is, let alone a faked video. He can't comprehend that a video picture can be created from just ones and zeros in a program. I watched some "supposed" deep fake videos. Most of the time, there is a "tell" that screams it's been altered because it's still not a perfect technology........yet. But you have to be looking for it, not sucking up what you want to see just to bolster your opinion of something you want to believe.

Boom! Deepfakes are already being used in Indian elections. Source. I guarantee by the end of this year we'll see this in US elections, probably from a super PAC under the guise that it's not an "official campaign message," which won't matter since it will still have the desired impact even if it's exposed. Wonderful...

In the past we could call someone a "low-information voter" but soon that label will be meaningless as truth evaporates.

Why would Trump bother with deep fakes when all he has to do have HIS justice department do a little "investigating", on the taxpayer dime mind you, just to dig up dirt on whoever the top Dem opposing candidate is once the election gets into full swing? I mean, Trump now believes he is the top justice God in this country and his word is the final word. He's already getting many of his cronies in crime let off by interfering in their lawful prosecutions. We'll also never see his tax returns either. This country is now officially an autocracy with Trump as head dictator.

vision wrote:I guarantee by the end of this year we'll see this in US elections, probably from a super PAC under the guise that it's not an "official campaign message," which won't matter since it will still have the desired impact even if it's exposed.

If/when they do make an appearance, I doubt it would be tied to any organization. No reason for it. It need only be launched by some unknown reddit account to be amplified organically until it gets a Uday Trump Jr. retweet to millions of believers.

Though I guess in this day and age, it doesn't really matter if some dark money PAC puts their name on it, because what are you going to do about it. Everything is so brazen now, it's almost a bonus to have your fingerprints all over it to show your peers that you're shameless. Shame is such a downer.

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:59 pm
If/when they do make an appearance, I doubt it would be tied to any organization. No reason for it. It need only be launched by some unknown reddit account to be amplified organically until it gets a Uday Trump Jr. retweet to millions of believers.

Though I guess in this day and age, it doesn't really matter if some dark money PAC puts their name on it, because what are you going to do about it. Everything is so brazen now, it's almost a bonus to have your fingerprints all over it to show your peers that you're shameless. Shame is such a downer.

Are you sure? The Republicans have already shamed themselves yellow by bowing down to the whims of an ego-maniacal narcissist and don't they don't seem to care one bit. Power has a way of negating shame once someone obtains that power, because once they have it, they will do anything to keep it no matter the cost.

Republicans who act shamelessly see their stars rise. Lindsey Graham throwing that ridiculous tantrum during the Kavanaugh hearings? Hero. Mitch McConnell cancelling Garland or actively working with the White House during the impeachment trial? Hero. Jim Jordan? Mark Meadows? Heroes.

Why would they ever want to feel shame? Who would want those icky feelings *and* perhaps suffer a loss of power?

Krom wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:14 am https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ar/605530/

Some good investigative reporting, but they also miss some bits.

For instance, nobody here doubts woodchip is a God fearing American citizen. But he is also basically a mindless robo-troll in the conservative disinformation campaign, he willingly and knowingly contributes to this machine that attacks the press and parrots lies and falsehoods. One of the biggest dangers of this campaign aren't the original bots/sources/lies, but the amplification it all receives from the loyal conservative base supporters. They aren't being so much controlled by bots and trolls, they are the bots and trolls and they love it because they want to believe all the lies and disinformation, it is like a cult and a drug and they are all addicts. Any time we press woodchip with something he disagrees with, he attacks it and dismisses it "fake news!". I wouldn't be particularly surprised if you isolated him from the fox news/conservative disinformation sphere for a few days that he would experience some actual physical withdrawal symptoms.

Saying I listen to Fox and Hannity is like me saying you get you news from MSNBC and CNN, which seems likely and shows how brain infected you are with the lefts mind control techniques . Perhaps you should try listening to a little of Jim Bohannon, or Eric Harley and Gary McNamara, or Frank Beckman, or even NPR to name a few. If you were paying attention You would of remembered that I cut the cable and don't watch tv, other than Net Flix . I suggest you do the same to regain a semblance of sanity that you obviously no longer posses

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:01 pm

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:59 pm
If/when they do make an appearance, I doubt it would be tied to any organization. No reason for it. It need only be launched by some unknown reddit account to be amplified organically until it gets a Uday Trump Jr. retweet to millions of believers.

Though I guess in this day and age, it doesn't really matter if some dark money PAC puts their name on it, because what are you going to do about it. Everything is so brazen now, it's almost a bonus to have your fingerprints all over it to show your peers that you're shameless. Shame is such a downer.

Are you sure? The Republicans have already shamed themselves yellow by bowing down to the whims of an ego-maniacal narcissist and don't they don't seem to care one bit. Power has a way of negating shame once someone obtains that power, because once they have it, they will do anything to keep it no matter the cost.

Wow, this is what you get from letting MSNBC and CNN be your news sources. I guess you all here missed the impeachment hearings where the Dems held secret meetings in the bowels of congress, where the Dems were so afraid of opposing few points that they wouldn't let the Reps call up the witnesses they wanted, Where the White House lawyers eviscerated the Dems case when it got to the senate. If there was any bowing down it was Pelosi giving Schiff a head job by granting the Impeachment to happen at all. To bad you don't get outside for some fresh air.

Delusional cult member.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:43 am
Wow, this is what you get from letting MSNBC and CNN be your news sources. I guess you all here missed the impeachment hearings where the Dems held secret meetings in the bowels of congress, where the Dems were so afraid of opposing few points that they wouldn't let the Reps call up the witnesses they wanted, Where the White House lawyers eviscerated the Dems case when it got to the senate. If there was any bowing down it was Pelosi giving Schiff a head job by granting the Impeachment to happen at all. To bad you don't get outside for some fresh air.

Dammit woody, you keep forgetting that those secret meetings came about because they were approved rule changes made by John Boehner's Republican Senate. If you don't like the rules, your party should quit changing them and then getting screwed when it burns them in the ass, so quit whining. Plus, the WH lawyers didn't even argue anything surrounding the legality or illegality of what Trump actually did when he asked his little favor of the Ukrainian Pres.. The GAO certainly thought it was illegal to withhold those foreign funds. All those bozo Trump lawyers could come up with was the argument that NOTHING Trump does can be construed as illegal, which really smacks of dictatorial power. And since you so favor opposing opinions, why didn't the Senate hold a proper trial, where the Republicans could've called their own witnesses in rebuttal?

Low-information voter, thy name is woody.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:35 pm



Dammit woody, you keep forgetting that those secret meetings came about because they were approved rule changes made by John Boehner's Republican Senate. If you don't like the rules, your party should quit changing them and then getting screwed when it burns them in the ass, so quit whining. Plus, the WH lawyers didn't even argue anything surrounding the legality or illegality of what Trump actually did when he asked his little favor of the Ukrainian Pres.. The GAO certainly thought it was illegal to withhold those foreign funds. All those bozo Trump lawyers could come up with was the argument that NOTHING Trump does can be construed as illegal, which really smacks of dictatorial power. And since you so favor opposing opinions, why didn't the Senate hold a proper trial, where the Republicans could've called their own witnesses in rebuttal?

Except TC, because you use brain rotting news sources and appear to be coming ever more stupid, this is what Boehner said:
I just spoke to John Boehner who told me that the only rules change he made was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes. He says he made no changes to rules governing conduct of impeachment hearings. https://t.co/RhX8fUrt6D

— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 24, 2019

You see, if you actually had any grey matter and able to think for yourself, you'd know that the secrecy rule was in the rule book long before then. Its when anything is added or deleted that it is stated the rule book was changed as was the case with adding Boehner's subpoena's clause. Getting tiresome with having to correct your liberal stupidity.

Absolute BS. Quit listening to Fox News personalities who won't even listen to one of their own. Read your own link, which is essentially a word for word repeat of the same facts as in the Politfact link below. The real meat of the issue is laid out in the second link below if you need it written out for you. The House Rules, written in 2015 under a Republican majority, say that this level of inquiry can be held in private. Those rules also say that the majority leader has the subpoena power, not the minority. So the minority want's subpoena powers? Tough tooties because in 2015, Boehner was Speaker and Kevin McCarthy was majority leader. They all knew what they were doing, apparently being short-sighted and not thinking it may eventually come back to haunt them. It also turns out that McCarthy was the loudest hypocrite out there bitching about his own damn rules! Those hearings were NOT SECRET either. Republican members of that committee were free to attend and did so. By the way, the actual Impeachment Hearings WERE held in public for all to see. Republicans were free to cross examine and bring in their own witnesses during that too, but they didn't even bother. All Trump's lawyers could muster was that what Trump did was not illegal, over and over and over ad infinitum.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... iry-follo/

https://www.nationalmemo.com/house-repu ... d-in-2015/

But while minority-party members once had significant say in who was subpoenaed, a major 2015 rule change rammed through by the Republican majority stripped them of this power. The majority leader at that time was McCarthy himself.....

But the House rules, which McCarthy and Scalise helped enact, also allow this fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry to be done in private, by the relevant committees. Indeed many of the House Republicans protesting the lack of “transparency” of the secure hearings are allowed to attend them and have been participating.

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:07 pm Low-information voter, thy name is woody.

Nah, like I said: it isn't "low-information" it is "deliberately wrong information". Low-information implies that it could be corrected by supplying more information, but rejecting reality in favor of some fantasy that lets one feel righteous and superior is a choice that can't be as easily remedied.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:45 pm Absolute BS. Quit listening to Fox News personalities who won't even listen to one of their own. Read your own link, which is essentially a word for word repeat of the same facts as in the Politfact link below. The real meat of the issue is laid out in the second link below if you need it written out for you. The House Rules, written in 2015 under a Republican majority, say that this level of inquiry can be held in private. Those rules also say that the majority leader has the subpoena power, not the minority. So the minority want's subpoena powers? Tough tooties because in 2015, Boehner was Speaker and Kevin McCarthy was majority leader. They all knew what they were doing, apparently being short-sighted and not thinking it may eventually come back to haunt them. It also turns out that McCarthy was the loudest hypocrite out there bitching about his own damn rules! Those hearings were NOT SECRET either. Republican members of that committee were free to attend and did so. By the way, the actual Impeachment Hearings WERE held in public for all to see. Republicans were free to cross examine and bring in their own witnesses during that too, but they didn't even bother. All Trump's lawyers could muster was that what Trump did was not illegal, over and over and over ad infinitum.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... iry-follo/

https://www.nationalmemo.com/house-repu ... d-in-2015/

But while minority-party members once had significant say in who was subpoenaed, a major 2015 rule change rammed through by the Republican majority stripped them of this power. The majority leader at that time was McCarthy himself.....

But the House rules, which McCarthy and Scalise helped enact, also allow this fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry to be done in private, by the relevant committees. Indeed many of the House Republicans protesting the lack of “transparency” of the secure hearings are allowed to attend them and have been participating.

Except TC, secrecy rules have been in place, like, forever.:

Since 1929, the Senate has held 54 secret sessions, generally for reasons of nationalsecurity. On November 1, 2005, the Senate met behind closed doors to discuss Iraq warintelligence. Six of the seven most recent secret sessions, however, were held during theimpeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.1 In 1997, the Senate met in secret to considerthe Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty and in 1992, to debate the “most favorednation” status of China. The Senate also closed its doors during the impeachment trial offederal judges in 1933 and 1936 and on six occasions in the 1980s.
The House met frequently in secret session through the end of the War of 1812, andthen only in 1825 and in 1830. Since 1830, the House has met behind closed doors onlyfour times: in 1979 to discuss the Panama Canal, in 1980 to discuss Central Americanassistance, in 1983 to discuss U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua, andin 2008 during debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resour ... 98-718.pdf
Like Boehner said, he had nothing to do with it. The rules were already there. You really are letting liberal web sites pollute your mind. Next time try using your eng. mind to ferret out answers

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 5:58 amYou really are letting liberal web sites pollute your mind.

This is a pretty funny comment coming from the likes of you. Please answer one question so we can be done with this thread: would you be completely comfortable with the way Trump engaged Ukraine if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did the same thing?

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 5:58 am
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resour ... 98-718.pdf
Like Boehner said, he had nothing to do with it. The rules were already there. You really are letting liberal web sites pollute your mind. Next time try using your eng. mind to ferret out answers

OK, I'll grant you this one, it appears that the only rule change made during Boehner's tenure in 2015 was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes. The Dems complained about it at the time when they were in the minority (and never once went on a giant parade like a bunch of fools) and now they're in power and the Republicans don't like it. Tough ★■◆● bozos. But still, what's all the screaming about from the Republicans? Those meetings during the "inquiries" were secret and that IS an old rule as you pointed out, but that only makes the proceedings secret from the public. So?? But remember, all the Republican members of that committee were not excluded. They were free to sit in, participate and listen to the proceedings as is part of their job, never being left out of the loop. They heard everything the Dems heard. Since there was no secrecy from the Republicans and that one rule was old, why gripe NOW, unless they wanted to change the old rules of the game just to fit their current paradigm. They already got burned by a recent rule change, so live with it. The way the Republicans bitched and screamed, they made it sound like they were being left out, WHICH THEY WEREN'T. The whole charade was nothing but a stupid publicity stunt.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/so-th ... c228e7715/

OK, here's one. My sister likes to listen to the radio, preferably a good right wing spoon feeding. She happened to be listening Jay Sekulow's Podcast on KTLA this morning. I didn't even know scumbag had a radio show, but I guess someone needs to be out there spreading all that Trump propaganda since Trump can't hold his boner rallies anymore. A caller asked him if Congress was going to benefit monetarily from that 2 trillion dollar coronavirus stimulus package because she'd heard it somewhere. Sekulow came right out and said "Sadly, yes". 25 million for the House and 10 million for the Senate, for extra EXPENSES, on average $200,000 a Senator. Now what I have read is that the Dems were the ones who were holding this thing up not long ago specifically because they didn't want any money going to personally help Congress, Trump or other top level members of the government. But so far can't find any corroborating information one way or another from either right wing or left wing sites. If true, it royally stinks. This is the only questionable spending I could find in the bill and Trump approved it.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/senat ... -heres-why

EDIT: OK I found out what it is. Sekulow making a false claim. Typical scum sucker..

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false ... ulus-bill/