All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Malvolio]

People don't seek pardons for s*** they didn't do and weren't yet accused of.



I wonder if they're going to stop burying their heads in the sand before it pops out on the other side of the Earth.

But, y'know, nobody's "really defending" him here for the sex crimes he sought a pardon for and there are literal Venmo receipts for.

Exactly. If this were just a rumor, I could see someone saying, "Well, I really don't know," but when there's this much evidence, and the guy asked for a pardon before the charges even went public, I mean, come on. The only way you could legitimately have no opinion on this one is if you've never really been into politics and just heard about Matt Gaetz last week. No one posting on this thread has that excuse.

[Catlady in training]

‘Something big is happening’: the Iranians risking everything to protest

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ing-to-protest

Some interesting observations by Iranians about the protests. I hope this will work and that there is at least some change for the better for those poor girls and women.

[Mister Mets]

Exactly. If this were just a rumor, I could see someone saying, "Well, I really don't know," but when there's this much evidence, and the guy asked for a pardon before the charges even went public, I mean, come on. The only way you could legitimately have no opinion on this one is if you've never really been into politics and just heard about Matt Gaetz last week. No one posting on this thread has that excuse.

I don't know if Matt Gaetz transported a minor over state lines and then slept with her.

If you think there's obvious proof, so great that no reasonably informed person can doubt his guilt, I'd be interested in seeing it.

A White House aide testifying a week ago that Gaetz asked for a pardon isn't sufficient evidence. This wouldn't be enough by itself to get a civil judgment, let alone a guilty verdict. As a process question, it's not enough by itself for any serious penalty (IE- kicking him out of Congress), nor should it be.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/17/polit...ent/index.html

Surely it’s fairly standard not to have a very strong opinion on large majority of cases that have not yet been tried in court?

In reality most of the time there’s not enough evidence in public domain to justify a really strong opinion either way….and certainly anybody called up to jury service would have to have an open mind, or not serve (on jury).

I think it should be standard not to have opinions on many things, or to admit you're not certain about something. There are a few dangerous attitudes in any expectation otherwise.

Most importantly, there are times when most people don't know for sure what happened. Sometimes, we'll never be sure. It's not a good idea to push anyone into taking one side or the other, and this sidesteps difficult but necessary questions (IE- should authority figures be restricted due to serious allegations when we'll never know what happened?) because some people substitute uncertainty with overconfidence.

There's an attitude online that insists that everyone be very plugged in, which comes with the ignorant expectation that everyone else agrees with the original online whiner about what's important and follows that topic just as closely. It encourages quick reactions in live stories. That's problematic as well, resulting in quite a few situations where people are exposed as being wrong.

At least he didn't wear a t-shirt.

What's the point of this comment?

People don't seek pardons for s*** they didn't do and weren't yet accused of.



I wonder if they're going to stop burying their heads in the sand before it pops out on the other side of the Earth.

But, y'know, nobody's "really defending" him here for the sex crimes he sought a pardon for and there are literal Venmo receipts for.

Please post the comment in which anyone was defending him.

[Mister Mets]

If you consider it an insult to be called out for sharing speculative "news" that a pedophile in your party who sought a pardon for child sex trafficking won't be charged as if that absolves said pedophile...

You can not continue to defend him. And pretend you're the "victim" here for being called out for it.

Y'know, "they doth protest too much" and all that, "hit dogs holler" optics.

Because sir, this is quite the hill to die on in a political discussion. White Nationalist Matt Gaetz getting away with banging minors.


The proper way to share a story like that would be, y'know, "WTF? How the f***? How are they letting a pedophile who tried to get a pardon for what he did get away with it?"

That context should be there for any person that doesn't exhibit partisan cult-like tendencies.

I certainly don't think that what I said merits insults, nor do I think the specific types of insults were merited.

I never once said that Matt Gaetz is absolved. If you inferred that, you were wrong to do so.

The "they doth protest too much" excuse for going after someone is awful. It rewards nasty behavior, insulting people and then using their responses as proof of guilt. It comboes well with gaslighting. You'd recognize the inadequacy of that argument if someone on a right-leaning forum used it against if you were noting that serious allegations haven't been verified.

You've used this comment a few times on this board. Twice was because I had suggested that it was possible that Stephen Miller did not order the justice department to use nazi dog whistles in a press release.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...st#post5717761

It's possible that you want to be taken seriously but not literally, and this is where we're arguing past one another. You want everyone to call Stephen Miller a bad person, so someone suggesting that one allegation is unrealistic is suspicious because they're not sending the right signal, and the focus on whether the specific allegation is sensible is a distraction from a larger message. If that's your viewpoint, be open about it. I proceed as if everyone here intends to be taken literally.

And if you're meant to be taken literally, these are probably okay proxies (on my side) for which of us is more likely to be right on any specific topic.

One way to look at it is to consider who should be embarrassed if evidence comes out that proves this either way.

If Matt Gaetz turns out to be unambiguously guilty of trafficking a minor (not hard if the wrong text message is leaked) I haven't said anything to embarrass myself. I haven't said nice things about him, nor have I expressed the confidence that the investigation will fail.

If these specific allegations turn out to be made up, you would have expressed overconfidence in an ambiguous situation and then made the toxic mistake of insulting people who turned out to be correct. That's a situation we should all strive to avoid ever being in.

[CaptainEurope]

Someone at the Trump White House called a Jan 6 terrorist while the attack was happening, according to a senior technical advisor in a 60 Minutes interview.

Who do you guess made that call?

[Tendrin]

Someone at the Trump White House called a Jan 6 terrorist while the attack was happening, according to a senior technical advisor in a 60 Minutes interview.

Who do you guess made that call?

It's harder to say without knowing which rioter was called with which group.

[CaptainEurope]

It's harder to say without knowing which rioter was called with which group.

Maybe we will find out in 3 days, the tech advisor has been working with the Jan 6 committee.

[CSTowle]

It's possible someone working at the White House had a friend or relative they knew in the crowd (hell, probably most of them did) and was either checking on them to see if they were safe or warning them that this was crossing the line and they should not get swept up in it. If one of my siblings or a friend were putting themselves in danger of arrest or worse, even for a cause I believe in too (which in the case of many White House staffers this was) I'd probably try to talk them out of it.

It's also possible there was coordination between people in the White House and folks on the ground, but until 1. the people involved in the call are revealed and 2. the contents of the call are revealed (which likely will never happen) we do not know and shouldn't get hyped up by what we want to believe is true. Seen that too many times already trying to take Trump down, and none of it has stuck so far.

[worstblogever]

I certainly don't think that what I said merits insults, nor do I think the specific types of insults were merited.

Because you weren't insulted. You just pretend you are to justify when you post defenses of horrible people, then also pretend/gaslight us by claiming that's totally not what you're doing when called out on it. Casting doubt on illegal or completely immoral/inhuman things members of your party have done as being real or having happened is a defense. Even if you try to pretend that it isn't after the fact.

It's frankly craven. Also not meant as an insult, but factual analysis of your tactics in discussion. And a very common conservative debate tactic. Similar to:

1. Say something racist/sexist.
2. If people call you racist/sexist for it, pretend that it's insulting to do so.

Substitute out "racist/sexist" for "defending a child sex trafficker" here, and we've got the crux of things.

Doubling down on what you've done to cast doubt Matt Gaetz's guilt over a child sex crime (which we know he did, because he sought a pardon) by reminding us you argued that Stephen Miller isn't a white nationalist once upon a time isn't helping make this look any better.

And, pointing out again, this is a really, really bizarre hill for anyone to die on in a discussion. I'm more than happy to be on the "child sex offenders should be reviled" side of an argument.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, as well as 2017, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published profiles of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, a man whose dedication to smaller government and lowered taxes has left his state with billion dollar budget deficits (annually), forced early school closures due to the state education budget running out of money before the scheduled end of the school year, and an overall dedication to Fundamentalist philosophies against abortion and LGBTQ rights that have forced the Kansas Supreme Court to step in, repeatedly. After repeatedly blocking the expansion of Medicaid in Kansas, Brownback released a statement that his opposition to the Medicaid expansion was that it would be “morally reprehensible” because it would help “able-bodied adults … who choose not to work” and would send money to “big city hospitals.” And Brownback chafes at any check or balance upon his power, particularly from the judiciary who he’s threatened to defund, as his leadership continues to abuse the poor and destitute, while allowing the wealthiest citizens to reach even greater heights of prosperity. Brownback still insists that it’s fine for him to conduct government business from his own private e-mail that is exempt from transparency laws, and only won re-election in 2014 with 49.8% of the vote, while other members of the GOP dominated at the polls, his approval ratings hover in the 30s, and several Kansas Republicans have turned to endorsing Democratic candidates rather than let his loyalists run roughshod over the greater good for Kansas. Kansas has had such a rough time of finding the money to run their own state that they were forced to auction off $163,000 of sex toys confiscated by law enforcement in 2015 to meet budget shortfalls. And when people actually report on how bad the plight of bad governance in Kansas actually is and how he’s been an abject failure as the state’s chief executive, Gov. Brownback claims everything’s fine, and it’s all just a “liberal conspiracy” to smear how good of a job he’s doing. Already in lame-duck status going into 2018, Republican officials convinced Donald Trump to nominate Sam Brownback to be his religious freedom ambassador, one of the few appointments he has made to the State Department, and Brownback resigned rather than flail about for the last few months of his term.



It was on this date in 2018, 2019, 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Matt Rosendale, who was a 2018 candidate for U.S Senate in Montana who unsuccessfully tried to swipe the seat of Democratic Senator Jon Tester, and who in 2020 got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for Montana’s At-Large seat. Rosendale touts his background as a real estate investor from Maryland who pretends he’s a rancher out on the range from almost all the way across the country, but all public records show, though, that Rosendale is a “rancher” by way of just renting real estate out to others who actually do the ranching on that land. This would be like if a landlord claimed to be a professional cosplayer because one of their tenants went to a comic convention dressed as Sailor Moon.

Anyway, that reputation as a carpetbagger is already rather established in Montana, because Rosendale was bludgeoned with that label when he was defeated in the 2014 Congressional Primary for Montana’s At-Large seat in the U.S. House of Representatives against FRED alumni Ryan Zinke. After winning one term in the Tea Party Wave in Montana back in 2010 to get into the State House, Rosendale won a single term in the Montana State Senate in 2012, before his losing streak started. The only election he’s won in Montana was for State Auditor in 2016, on the benefit of getting to run unopposed.

And, because Rosendale is willing to campaign on immigration by calling for Donald Trump’s stupid idea for a border wall along the U.S./Mexico border and Sen. Jon Tester s***talked the thin-skinned orange menace, Emperor Dementia von F***face himself enough that Trump went to campaign in Montana on Rosendale’s behalf, which amounted to him rambling incoherently for almost an hour while barely mentioning the candidate. That would be the same rally where Trump lost the crowd enough that a guy in a plaid shirt upstaged him, and that other attendees were escorted out and replaced with audience plants because they didn’t look enthusiastic enough.

Our main issues with Rosendale, however, aren’t his carpetbagging, so much as they are with his rampant racism. That’s almost a given, we know, with labeling himself a Trump conservative and wanting a border wall, but because he’s spoken highly of white supremacists in Montana like Taylor Rose and Chuck Baldwin. Or how after Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis was outed as the moderator of a Facebook group of conservatives that exists almost solely to share racist memes and insane conspiracy theories like Pizzagate or that the left orchestrated Charlottesville, Rosendale was revealed to have been an active member of it for some time (when caught, he dropped himself from the group).

Matt Rosendale couldn’t seem to go more than a week without a major campaign gaffe, as now he’s being investigated by the Federal Election Commission because his campaign was illegally coordinating their ad campaigns with the NRA because he himself blurted out that he was doing it in a televised interview.

[CaptainEurope]

This is a good exploration of fake news by the BBC:



Undercover with Russia’s fake arms dealers

"Ukrops [a derogatory Russian slang term used to refer to Ukrainians] are selling Javelins on the darknet. The command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine resells equipment and weapons supplied by Nato." This message about anti-tank weapons was posted on 2 June by pro-Kremlin English-language account ASB Military News.


...


These posts were quickly picked up by mainstream Russian state TV, which routinely runs stories claiming Ukraine is selling weapons supplied by the West.


...
"Usually, you would find people who know a marketplace. But we didn't find any reviews or recommendations of this platform. We had a lot of trouble finding anything about this marketplace, any kind of feedback," says Irina Nesterovsky, KELA chief research officer.

She questions how Russian journalists found it so easily.

Ms Nesterovsky says it is not clear if the adverts were created specifically by pro-Russian actors or if scammers active on the dark web created them independently, and then pro-Kremlin sources picked them up.

But the timing and the similarity of claims made by Russian state media outlets suggest that it could be an organised disinformation campaign.

[worstblogever]

While Rosendale was defeated in his 2018 Senate race with John Tester, earning only 47% of the vote, in 2020, he defeated Kathleen Williams to win the At-Large seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for Montana, replacing Greg Gianforte. His voting record seems to indicate the radically conservative ideals we’d fear he’d have:

• January 7th, 2021: Matt Rosendale votes for the objection to the electoral college’s votes in the 2020 election, a failure to send any sort of message that he wasn’t intimidated or sympathetic to those who attacked the Capitol to attempt a violent coup.
• January 13th, 2021: Rep. Rosendale votes against the second impeachment of Donald Trump, because the Republican Party no longer feels like they should be accountable for anything, including failed coups that result in the deaths of both their participants and police officers.
• February 4th, 2021: Matt Rosendale votes to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene’s committee assignments, because he wouldn’t want her to be accountable for all the bigoted remarks and conspiracy theories she’s spread online (probably because she’s a kindred spirit).
• February 25th, 2021: Rosendale votes against HR 5, the latest version of the Equality Act, that would provide workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans.
• March 3rd, 2021: Rep. Rosendale votes against HR 1, a bill created to prevent the corruption of money in politics, and protect voter access to the ballot box.
• March 3rd, 2021: Matt Rosendale votes against the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
• March 10th, 2021: Rosendale votes against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, because he feels people deserve to die in poverty during a pandemic.
• March 17th, 2021: Rep. Rosendale votes against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• May 19th, 2021: Rep. Rosendale votes against HR 3233, the creation of a commission to investigate the Capitol Attack.
• May 20th, 2021: Rosendale is one of 63 Republicans who vote against the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act.
• June 15th, 2021: Rep. Rosendale is one of twenty-one Republicans who pick a side to have rooted for in the failed coup attempt on 1/6/21 and votes against awarding Congressional gold medals to members of the Capitol Police who bravely defended members of Congress during the attack.
• June 16th, 2021: Matt Rosendale is one of 14 Republicans who vote against celebrating Juneteenth as a federal holiday.
• July 22nd, 2021: Rep. Rosendale is one of 16 Republicans who vote against HR 3895, the Allies Act, which was passed without his support to raise the amount of visas offered and to expedite their issue to Afghan translators and their families to honor our promise to protect them against the Taliban after U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, thus feeling we should go back on our word and leave them to die.
• November 5th, 2021: Matt Rosendale votes against HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
• March 31st, 2022: Rosendale votes against HR 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would limit the cost that drug companies could list insulin at to $35 and make sure no diabetic was priced out of surviving their condition. Bill Mattson would rather they be gouged by pharmaceutical giants and/or die.
• May 18th, 2022: Matt Rosendale is one of 192 Republicans who votes against HR 7790, to create supplemental funding for infant formula (while claiming to be pro- life).
• May 18th, 2022: Rep. Rosendale votes against HR 350, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, because these days, a plank of the Republican Party is ostensibly domestic terror.
• May 19th, 2022: Rosendale votes against HR 7688, a bill which would help prevent gas companies from gouging customers on prices.
• July 15th, 2022: Matt Rosendale votes against House Amendment 262, which would require the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Secretary of Defense to publish a report on the infiltration of American law enforcement by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, offer measures to be taken to remove them from their ranks, and prevent further infiltration by others.
• July 13th, 2022: Rosendale votes against the Honoring Our PACT Act, to provide healthcare to veterans affected by toxic burn pits while serving in the War on Terror that leave them more susceptible to forms of cancer.
• July 19th, 2022: Rep. Rosendale is one of 157 Republicans who vote against the “Respect for Marriage Act”, which would codify same sex marriage into law nationally.
• July 21st, 2022: Rosendale is one of 195 Republicans who vote against the Right to Contraception Act, which codified the right of Americans to have access to birth control.

As we noted that Matt Rosendale has spoken highly of white supremacists above, it should come as little surprise that in 2021, he was in an absolute bigoted panic over the news that refugees from Afghanistan are going to be resettled in Montana, and began almost immediately reacting with inflammatory rhetoric. He was publicly rebuked by the Mayor of Helena, Wilmot Collins for it, who is himself, an immigrant refugee from Liberia who came to the United States in the 1990s.

Oh, and we should note that Matt Rosendale seems to be in the tank for Vladimir Putin and Russia in their war with Ukraine, being one of only three Republicans who voted against a resolution to criticize Russia’s further invasion in 2022, and when nations like Sweden and Finland submitted membership to join NATO to make sure they had the rest of Europe ready to defend them if Putin got an annexation itch again, he was one of 18 Republicans to vote against that.

Montana is, of course, an extremely right-leaning state, so it would be an upset if in 2022 if someone could wrest Montana’s At-Large seat away from Matt Rosendale. We can only hope for that unlikely outcome, to rid Congress of another white nationalist schmuck.

[Mister Mets]

Because you weren't insulted. You just pretend you are to justify when you post defenses of horrible people, then also pretend/gaslight us by claiming that's totally not what you're doing when called out on it. Casting doubt on illegal or completely immoral/inhuman things members of your party have done as being real or having happened is a defense. Even if you try to pretend that it isn't after the fact.

It's frankly craven. Also not meant as an insult, but factual analysis of your tactics in discussion. And a very common conservative debate tactic. Similar to:

1. Say something racist/sexist.
2. If people call you racist/sexist for it, pretend that it's insulting to do so.

Substitute out "racist/sexist" for "defending a child sex trafficker" here, and we've got the crux of things.

Doubling down on what you've done to cast doubt Matt Gaetz's guilt over a child sex crime (which we know he did, because he sought a pardon) by reminding us you argued that Stephen Miller isn't a white nationalist once upon a time isn't helping make this look any better.

And, pointing out again, this is a really, really bizarre hill for anyone to die on in a discussion. I'm more than happy to be on the "child sex offenders should be reviled" side of an argument.

Since we're talking about defending bad people, can we all agree as a principle that when you go after someone for defending someone else, that's only a valid complaint if they say something untrue or if they're misleading in some way (IE- missing important context.) Can we agree that decent people do not criticize people who are correct on the facts?

As for the hills I picked to die on...
- The Washington Post has an article in which sources say the Garland justice department is unlikely to prosecute Matt Gaetz for sex trafficking.
- Gaetz asking for a pardon would not be sufficient evidence for any serious penalties (IE- expulsion from Congress, a loss in a civil trial, a guilty verdict in a criminal trial.)
- It is possible that Stephen Miller did not push the justice department to use Nazi dog whistles in a press release.

Any change in goalposts is gaslighting. I'm right if it turns out that someone else in the Trump administration encouraged the justice department to use nazi dog whistles in a press release, and that Stephen Miller is a white nationalist who was unaware of that particular announcement.

[Mister Mets]

First bolded, there is a difference. The first actually reflects the arguments and rhetoric you're likely to hear from registered Republican voters who "like Trump because he's not a politician" and "want to throw all the bums out". The second is what more intelligent conservatives do when they start to feel guilty for adhering to what is ultimately a selfish and simplistic view of politics and want reassurance that what they're doing is really the practical thing and ultimately better for the country in the long run (even if it's mainly "let me keep my money and leave me alone", a sentiment anyone over the age of 8 should be past).

I'm far more interested in what the average Republican voter wants, which is not to listen to George Will. I'd guess if they did they'd have about as much interest in what he has to say as what the Clintons do (especially as Will is a Never-Trumper). He's one of those Republicans who want to believe they didn't create the atmosphere for a Trump (or worse, a Trump with actual beliefs and ambition) and that this is just a temporary aberration from the conservative status quo that will eventually right itself, and if we get to keep the more conservative Court that's just a happy but unintended consequence of the Party's temporary insanity.

On the second bolded it's useful to listen to the George Wills of the world if you're interested in debating politics from a sanitized theoretical view, but if you're interested in what's actually happening now and what's likely to happen in the future then he's far less relevant than a Tucker Carlson or even the Qanon crowd.

Fox News is still an imperfect way to figure out what registered voters really want because the circle of regular Republican voters is much bigger than the circle of regular Fox News voters.

My point on Fox News is that it's not where you go for the best articulations of Republican policy.

You do have a solid point that it is a place to go to get an understanding of a big part of the modern Republican mindset.

This does get to an interesting question. Is there something like that on the left? Left-wing media sources tend to be well to the left of the standard Democratic primary voter.

Exactly. If this were just a rumor, I could see someone saying, "Well, I really don't know," but when there's this much evidence, and the guy asked for a pardon before the charges even went public, I mean, come on. The only way you could legitimately have no opinion on this one is if you've never really been into politics and just heard about Matt Gaetz last week. No one posting on this thread has that excuse.

I certainly have an opinion on Matt Gaetz, but that's different from being confident either way about whether he committed a specific crime.

Insisting that someone have on opinion on Gaetz's guilt in this case is kinda like asking for their opinion about the next card to be drawn in a Poker game.

This is a good exploration of fake news by the BBC:



Undercover with Russia’s fake arms dealers

Interesting.

[Malvolio]

Fox News is still an imperfect way to figure out what registered voters really want because the circle of regular Republican voters is much bigger than the circle of regular Fox News voters.

My point on Fox News is that it's not where you go for the best articulations of Republican policy.

You do have a solid point that it is a place to go to get an understanding of a big part of the modern Republican mindset.

This does get to an interesting question. Is there something like that on the left? Left-wing media sources tend to be well to the left of the standard Democratic primary voter.



I certainly have an opinion on Matt Gaetz, but that's different from being confident either way about whether he committed a specific crime.

Insisting that someone have on opinion on Gaetz's guilt in this case is kinda like asking for their opinion about the next card to be drawn in a Poker game.

Interesting.

If you know how to count cards, then you would have a reasonable opinion on what the next card to be drawn in a poker game would be. But of course, it's a faulty argument, because you have a lot of actual evidence in the Gaetz case. Granted, most of it is circumstantial, but we're not talking about how you would vote on a jury, but rather about what it probably looks like. And, BTW, innocent people generally don't ask for pardons. They go to court, or plea bargain, if they think they'd get railroaded in court.