191–200 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GOP's stated preferences for defunding Ukraine's defense The voting record shows their preference is to continue funding it. I don't know why your information sources are saying the opposite. Maybe they do it to polarize us.
some GOPs do not support funding Ukraine, most do. Also, most want accountability and audit
The timing of this information suggests that while it may be true, its very disclosure may also be meddling in foreign elections -- i.e. casting doubt on their legitimacy helps many within the US who are actively trying to propagate that narrative. EDIT: A word
Russian interference is a pretty one sided thing. If it happened, it was to Trump benefit. Such declaration will be dismissed by conservatives as Democrat narrative. And democrats will just get comforted in their position. Russia would be stupid to say anything that would help democrats. They would be much better off with a republican house and senate. I think there are smarter things to say if they wanted to muddy t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GOP's stated preferences for defunding Ukraine's defense The voting record shows their preference is to continue funding it. I don't know why your information sources are saying the opposite. Maybe they do it to polarize us.
some GOPs do not support funding Ukraine, most do. Also, most want accountability and audit
I'm certainly not concerned about the dollars being used to fight Putin because I think the costs of not doing otherwise would far outweigh them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and Khrushchev all died peacefully.
Yes, but did they groom a successor? Yeltsin did (Putin). Krushchev - not sure, I think there was a bit of a tussle. Gorbachev was probably too young to be thinking about a successsor - and he was essentially shutting down the Soviet Union.
> Russian companies were charged in the U.S. with operating a covert social media campaign aimed at fomenting discord and dividing American public opinion This is key here and I think we should all take note because I see comments here that feed into their tactics. Their goal isn't to have a specific election winner, but to divide us as a nation (not just US but all Westerners and even countries like Japan) and creat…
One thing we could do would be to implement some common-sense election integrity improvements such as those recommended in https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25120/securing-the... , or similarly by the advocacy group: https://verifiedvoting.org/annual-report-2021/advocating-for... . These should have bipartisan support. Things like paper votes for every election, random manual recounts to sample error rates an…
You waste resources playing a whack-a-mole game against the firehose of bullshit. It's electoral fraud now, something to do with green energy plans next, then whatever welfare issue is hot in the moment. Something with immigrants and then start repeating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why everyone assumes this. It seems like he'd have much more ability to shape the future of Russia and protect those close to him if he chooses a successor and oversees the succession. He could also ensure better conditions for himself (i.e. not being executed) in case he ends up being unable to continue ruling due to sickness/old age.
> I'm not sure why everyone assumes this. Because propaganda has convinced every American that they know Putin personally, and understand his internal thoughts and drives. Those thoughts and drives are to cause evil everywhere, and a bottomless ego that can only be satisfied by conquering the world. It's not really a subtle caricature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is evidence the election wasn't fair, you should object. Obviously. > But your evidence that it was unfair shouldn't be your own hurt feelings and propaganda. Of course not. I have some real reasons for doubting the results. Three days ago, an argentinian man streamed a video where he analyzed our election's official data set. He found that the older models of our voting machines, less thoroughly audited,…
Did Lula also have more support in the polling in those places that used those older models? I assume those districts would be the poorer districts, and Lula did have more support among the low income, correct? I think you’re looking at correlations in data and fantasizing a causation that isn’t there.
If I understood correctly, they were compared to other machines in the same electoral zone. Each zone can have 2020 models and pre-2020 models. The older models had more votes compared to 2020 models even in the same geographical locations.
> I think you’re looking at correlations in data and fantasizing a causation that isn’t there.
Look I honestly don't know anymore. Can you help me make sense of it? It was published here:
https://brazilwasstolen.com/en/
Attempting to discuss this anywhere else, I was met with censorship and heavily biased political discourse. I know the electoral court has not made any statements regarding it, they're just censoring everything. I've never seen anything like this in my country before.
The argentinian man made a video presentation but I don't have access to it anymore due to censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are things we the public NEED to do I dont disagree, but my take is relying on public changing its behavior is not exactly a hopeful strategy.
If they are relying on us changing in negative ways, why is it necessarily the case that we can't change in positive ways?
I think it's possible to fight back with positive changes but those take decades to generations to actually take hold while requiring political support throughout so plans set in motion can actually reap benefits by then. Any political thwarting from adversarial forces and those long-term plans just grind to a halt or are reversed.
It's an uphill battle, for years and years to come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> malinformation Please do not normalize the use of a term that is being pushed by the government to justify censoring information they don’t like [1]. I understand that there is such a thing as “true information presented out of context in a manner meant to mislead”, and I even grant that the comment might be guilty of it. But “malinformation” and “misinformation” are just becoming labels for “information that is in…
I'm not a latin expert, but "malinformation" seems like an etomogically perfect word to describe a "whataboutism"
My impression (mostly from coverage that I've seen at UnderstandingWar.org ) is that Yevgeny Prigozhin might be happy to admit to quite a few things - whether or not he'd actually done them - so long as doing so advanced his public image (hint - neither "weak" nor "pro-American") and political ambitions. Pass the salt?
mostly from coverage that I've seen at UnderstandingWar.org Fair warning, that site is a blog run by a neocon think tank, headed by the King NeoCon himself Bill Kristol. This is the weapons of mass destruction crew, nothing they say should never be taken seriously.
OTOH, I'm old & well-read enough to know that they are working from limited information sources, within a narrow analysis framework, and even the best-resourced and -intentioned military-style war reporting has a pretty iffy record.