All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Tami]

Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis

Sheryl Sandberg was seething.

Inside Facebook’s Menlo Park, Calif., headquarters, top executives gathered in the glass-walled conference room of its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. It was September 2017, more than a year after Facebook engineers discovered suspicious Russia-linked activity on its site, an early warning of the Kremlin campaign to disrupt the 2016 American election. Congressional and federal investigators were closing in on evidence that would implicate the company.

But it wasn’t the looming disaster at Facebook that angered Ms. Sandberg. It was the social network’s security chief, Alex Stamos, who had informed company board members the day before that Facebook had yet to contain the Russian infestation. Mr. Stamos’s briefing had prompted a humiliating boardroom interrogation of Ms. Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, and her billionaire boss. She appeared to regard the admission as a betrayal.

“You threw us under the bus!” she yelled at Mr. Stamos, according to people who were present.

The clash that day would set off a reckoning — for Mr. Zuckerberg, for Ms. Sandberg and for the business they had built together. In just over a decade, Facebook has connected more than 2.2 billion people, a global nation unto itself that reshaped political campaigns, the advertising business and daily life around the world. Along the way, Facebook accumulated one of the largest-ever repositories of personal data, a treasure trove of photos, messages and likes that propelled the company into the Fortune 500.

[PaulBullion]

She's a Justice Democrat. Those women are TRUE Grass Roots, not those big dollar takers. That scares the Schumers and Pelosi' of the world.

When you find yourself agreeing with both number30 and Donald Trump on an issue, how does that make you feel?

[PaulBullion]

Sanders is already too old to become POTUS for a full term.

I think Michael Avenatti would have a better chance than Warren, Gillum or Harris

Speaking of age:
That post did not age well.

[Dalak]

That’s on the press and the people for being duped then.

Personally, I always blame liars, con men, and other grifters for their bullshit more than their victims even if I agree that they need to do more to avoid being duped in the future. If it could be done it'd be better for everyone if those on the gov't dime (Elected, Appointed, Contracted, etc) were held accountable for lying to/misleading the public in any way, with actual consequences including mandatory jail time.

[PaulBullion]

No. It's really not. Not supporting whatever AOC does on a given day doesn't mean I don't 'stand with progressives'. Believing getting rid of Pelosi is falling into a right-wing trap based on a cariacture of her is not 'not standing with progressives'. Tactical differences or thinking the Intercept-Left is frequently unhelpful doesn't mean I'm not 'progressive', or that Bernie is frequently awful at doing things that don't center white men is not refusing to 'stand with progressives'.

The vast majority of the (mostly white, male) members of the House who wrote the anti-Pelosi letter were to the right of her.

Edit: You beat me to it a few posts later.

[TheDarman]

It’s really not, and a Democrat’s are in for a RUDE awakening if they oust Pelosi. She’s been the most effective Democrat at passing Pbama’s agenda and stopping Trump’s. It’s a big tent party with lots of voices and turmoil and she’s been incredibly successful at building consensus among her colleagues. That’s a huge skill and has been a silver lining in a decade of losing for Democrats.

There’s no guarantee the next person can get the votes and consensus. You could literally piss away the majority in the House on impact if the next leader can’t do that. And it’s not easy. Reid couldn’t do it, Schumer couldn’t do it, and Ryan couldn’t do it.. People need to stop acting like it’s given that people will fall in line under the next person. That hasn’t worked out for this party lately.

Agreed. It is very disconcerting that people seem to think that it is easy to govern. It isn’t. Consensus building is immensely difficult. If Democrats want new blood, I say get Pelosi to fill out Majority Leader and Whip with newer blood and let them work with her. But the truth is that Obama’s agenda would’ve been dead on arrival in the House without Pelosi. Especially now, do you think that the left wing of the party and those trying to keep tough seats in red districts agree on too terribly much? Especially given some progressives seem to be under this illusion that progressive candidates can win anywhere and that everyone should follow them no matter what, I don’t see how they can be effective in either party leadership position.

[PaulBullion]

On the topic of a nation wanting more independence, do you know who is the biggest trading partner of the UK?

The United States. Headed by Donald John Trump.

Do you think Trump, or any other member of his Front National nativist clique, will offer us a decent trading deal, without strings attached? What price will he extort? What price will other nations extort?

We're not going to get more independence. We are going to get less.

We've sacrificed our economic well being and international autonomy... for what? Was this what it all amounted to - a blue passport, and a slogan on a bus?

I think "causing lots of grief for foreigners" was a goal that has actually been achieved.

[Tazirai]

When you find yourself agreeing with both number30 and Donald Trump on an issue, how does that make you feel?

Since I have no idea what you speak of. I will shrug my shoulders and say ok?

If Trump does something Good (no TPP, Hillary was for it) should I still **** on the thing he did? If Hillary does something terrible (Super Predators) should I ignore it?

/shrug /shrug /shrug???

[Tazirai]

Wish American "Journalists" had this backbone...

Journalist Mehdi Hasan Brilliantly Grills Trump Official On President’s Lies
Al Jazeera host wrote on Twitter, “Hey US media folks, here, I would argue immodestly, is how you interview a Trump supporter on Trump’s lies.”

But I think some would take umbrage with him being so not #civility.


Pelosi needs to go. I don't care how much media and her supporters make it about her having a vagina. She may have been good once, but no longer. BARBARA LEE for Speaker, as I've said before.

She can take Schumer with her.

[TheDarman]

Since I have no idea what you speak of. I will shrug my shoulders and say ok?

If Trump does something Good (no TPP, Hillary was for it) should I still **** on the thing he did? If Hillary does something terrible (Super Predators) should I ignore it?

/shrug /shrug /shrug???

I'm actually curious. What do you hate so much about the TPP? I've been trying to figure it out because, for all intents and purposes, as far as trade deals go at all, it seemed pretty good.

It increased necessary environmental standards. It increased labor regulations in countries that have become truly competitive against our manufacturing sector (which would benefit from having higher labor standards in these countries). It also decreased, necessarily, our domestic patents on new drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

For anyone that is okay with trade deals generally, I don't see why the TPP, in content, got the hate it did. Other than it being a vehicle for anti-globalist populists, like Trump and Sanders, to hate on. But I'd guess they would've attacked virtually any trade deal as being harmful to the American worker because, and this is true, America doesn't aid those hurt by creative destruction. But if we had also done what other programs Obama had wanted, we probably would have more of an infrastructure in place domestically to deal with these problems. So /shrug.

Also, I'm curious what you think about these scores that a progressive organization provides based on the votes that Senators provide on actual legislation:

Here Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker are listed as more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

[Gray Lensman]

I'm actually curious. What do you hate so much about the TPP? I've been trying to figure it out because, for all intents and purposes, as far as trade deals go at all, it seemed pretty good.

It increased necessary environmental standards. It increased labor regulations in countries that have become truly competitive against our manufacturing sector (which would benefit from having higher labor standards in these countries). It also decreased, necessarily, our domestic patents on new drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

For anyone that is okay with trade deals generally, I don't see why the TPP, in content, got the hate it did. Other than it being a vehicle for anti-globalist populists, like Trump and Sanders, to hate on. But I'd guess they would've attacked virtually any trade deal as being harmful to the American worker because, and this is true, America doesn't aid those hurt by creative destruction. But if we had also done what other programs Obama had wanted, we probably would have more of an infrastructure in place domestically to deal with these problems. So /shrug.

Also, I'm curious what you think about these scores that a progressive organization provides based on the votes that Senators provide on actual legislation:

Here Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker are listed as more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

I'm not sure if it made it to the final draft, but the initial intellectual property rights provisions looked like they were written by Disney's lawyers, who immediately ejaculated into thier pants after doing so. Guilt presumed, innocence must be proven, and a 3rd party can start the process. And with internet culture being what it is (too many people subscribe to the childish mentality that things they don't like shouldn't be available to anyone) I was bracing for lots of stuff to vanish if it went through.

[TheDarman]

I'm not sure if it made it to the final draft, but the initial intellectual property rights provisions looked like they were written by Disney's lawyers, who immediately ejaculated into thier pants after doing so. Guilt presumed, innocence must be proven, and a 3rd party can start the process. And with internet culture being what it is (too many people subscribe to the childish mentality that things they don't like shouldn't be available to anyone) I was bracing for lots of stuff to vanish if it went through.

I think a lot of the intellectual property stuff was changed at a later date. It is worth noting that the Bush Administration initially started negotiations for this trade agreement and it was a patchwork of special interest language to begin with. It’s why it took the Obama Administration eight years to finally unveil it. But there were concerns with how issues were litigated out of domestic courts (as there was an assumption that suing domestically would give particular countries’ courts biases, especially with agreements in international law) and in international courts that did warrant fair concerns of loss of sovereignty. I just didn’t see how to do it better.

[Tami]

I'm actually curious. What do you hate so much about the TPP? I've been trying to figure it out because, for all intents and purposes, as far as trade deals go at all, it seemed pretty good.

It increased necessary environmental standards. It increased labor regulations in countries that have become truly competitive against our manufacturing sector (which would benefit from having higher labor standards in these countries). It also decreased, necessarily, our domestic patents on new drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

For anyone that is okay with trade deals generally, I don't see why the TPP, in content, got the hate it did. Other than it being a vehicle for anti-globalist populists, like Trump and Sanders, to hate on. But I'd guess they would've attacked virtually any trade deal as being harmful to the American worker because, and this is true, America doesn't aid those hurt by creative destruction. But if we had also done what other programs Obama had wanted, we probably would have more of an infrastructure in place domestically to deal with these problems. So /shrug.

Also, I'm curious what you think about these scores that a progressive organization provides based on the votes that Senators provide on actual legislation:

Here Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker are listed as more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

Checked the link. It's interesting, but I'm still not convinced that there is a single consensus on the definition of 'Progressive'.

[TheDarman]

Checked the link. It's interesting, but I'm still not convinced that there is a single consensus on the definition of 'Progressive'.

Nor am I. But this is literally the only measure I’ve actually seen provided by Tazirai or myself and it indicates something contrary to the message that he consistently argues for.

[Coin Biter]

There are a number of common sense things I would have expected Mrs May's (or David Cameron) government to do IF they had been really committed to implementing the democratic mandate as efficiently as possible....which were not done.

I could cite many examples, but I'll quote the main four:-

1/ I would have expected..given obvious importance to UK of thing going smoothly...that Cabinet would have met right at start of process (i.e. before serving Article 50 notice) for as long as necessary to get complete agreement on what they wanted ultimate UK/ EU relationship to be after exit. Was aim a Canadian free trade type agreement, or Norwegian model, or whatever? If that took Cabinet a week, two weeks, a month of meeting day after day..it should have been done. They had nothing more important to do!

2/ Work on exactly what would happen if we came out without a deal and traded on GATT terms should have been similarly started immediately. For two reasons. First so we had an exact basis for judging what was a "good deal" (i.e. better than no deal) and what was a bad deal (i.e. worse than GATT.) Secondly doing that right at outset would have put a bit more pressure on EU negotiating team...they would know they had to at least offer some improvement on "no deal".

3/ Work should have started on creating cross party teams to work on specific important areas, such as NI/ Ireland border arrangements.

4/ Some one more clued up and dynamic than David Davies should have been put in charge of exit dept.

None of that was rocket science. It should all have been done IF government really wanted exit to be a success. They didn't...they have sabotaged it.

Let me give an analogy for our American friends. If USA had a referendum on Universal Healthcare...and the people wanted just that...what would would happen if Republicans were put in charge of work to implement the decision?? Answer: they would sabotage it, to make it appear the referendum decision was crap....

I do agree with some of your points. Agreement over the fundamentals of the future relationship should have been obtained - no one really knew what they were voting for in 2016. Triggering Article 50 should have been delayed. But there are various reasons that didn’t happen, none of which were to do with secret Remainer MPs seeking to sabotage the glorious future.

May was under immense pressure from the Brexiteer media and the sentiment in her own party to, in her words, “get on with it”. It was felt that anything other than an immediate movement towards exit would be betraying the mandate given in the referendum. Do you remember the furious press response to the Supreme Court judgement that held simply that an Act of Parliament was necessary to trigger Article 50, that a mere government diktat was insufficient? “Enemies of the people” was the phrase the Mail used. Do you think that they, and the ERG myrmidons in Parliament, would have been gentler with a Prime Minister who sought to delay in Parliament?

May and her negotiating team have not deliberately sabotaged the referendum. Do you really consider that there was a sure route to success that a committed team might have been able to implement? Newsflash: there wasn’t. We were told that a brilliant trade relationship with the EU was possible, without committing to the fundamental freedoms. It’s not. We were told that crashing out of the EU with no deal would be OK because we’d be able to rely on WTO terms. It won’t be. We were told that all the warnings about the economic perils of leaving the EU were “Project Fear”. They weren’t.

People just had an inchoate feeling of distrust to the EU without understanding the institutions or what we were actually a part of. I recall watching Sky News a year and a half ago and this guy was saying “we should just get on with it” and that what people didn’t understand was that “the financial services industry was a very big part of the British economy” (which is true) and that leaving would “enable us to cut red tape” (which is false, as there was a real risk that we would lose passporting rights, which would complicate the job of the financial services, multiplying red tape, the fear of which has already caused many individuals and institutions to plan to relocate from the UK FS industry). And this was a “talking head” an “expert” - someone who people might actually be supposed to have faith in the thought that he might know what he was talking about.

Hell, I’ve spoken to many people who still don’t know the difference between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

We couldn’t wave a magic wand and have expected the EU to accede to our demands. Sure, Britain has a large economy (smaller than it would have been if not for the referendum, and to become smaller still). But collectively the EU has a larger market, and as we are more exposed, have less to lose than we do.

It’s not our government that has failed us, at least not in the way that you think. You could say that they failed by not being candid about the risks post referendum, you could say they failed by jumping in without proper forethought, although they did try to warn pre referendum, and were shouted down by the people proclaiming “Project Fear”.

But this isn’t a failure of negotiation. Reality simply has not measured up to expectations. And that, perhaps, is the true lesson of taking back control.