Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-02-2022, 05:28 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Republicans:
"This is bullshit! How can I get anyone to vote for me if I can't make up shit about my opponent?"

Or am I reading this wrong?

If you can't spread lies to break democracy and put an autocrat in power to own the libs,


then it's OPRRESSION. 

[IsaacCurtis]

Blatant censorship.

Who else called themselves the ministry of truth in the past?
Every dictatorship

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-02-2022, 09:30 AM)Dill Wrote: If you can't spread lies to break democracy and put an autocrat in power to own the libs,


then it's OPRRESSION. 

You seem to be operating on the assumption that the people involved will perform their job in a fair and equitable fashion.  Given the background of the person picked to head it I'd say that's not a safe assumption to make.  Honestly, it would be a poor assumption to make regardless of the person hired.  I just find it odd that anyone would put such blind trust in this board and its "mission."

[Sled21]

(05-01-2022, 10:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are equating "conservative voices," many of whom are anti-Trump, with disinformation--

such as Obama was born in Kenya, Hillary turned down security requests for the mission in Benghazi and "got off," then ran a child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor on Capitol Hill, and Biden is a practicing pedophile who stole the election from Trump after covering for his son's misdeeds in Ukraine. I.e., stories which may be debunked, but remain "true" for millions of voters. 

This is the sort of thing which makes it hard--or impossible--for democracies to work. 

The ship will not be righted until the mass of "conservatives" become as suspicious of Trump and Fox News as they currently are
of all things "government."

Clinton absolutely turned down multiple securityreqests for Benghazi, and its not even debatable. It is well documented.

[basballguy]

(05-01-2022, 10:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are equating "conservative voices," many of whom are anti-Trump, with disinformation--

such as Obama was born in Kenya, Hillary turned down security requests for the mission in Benghazi and "got off," then ran a child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor on Capitol Hill, and Biden is a practicing pedophile who stole the election from Trump after covering for his son's misdeeds in Ukraine. I.e., stories which may be debunked, but remain "true" for millions of voters. 

This is the sort of thing which makes it hard--or impossible--for democracies to work. 

The ship will not be righted until the mass of "conservatives" become as suspicious of Trump and Fox News as they currently are
of all things "government."

Last month sometime you made a reply to me about not taking what you say seriously.

Is this one of those times where you're joking?  

People don't believe wild ass theories for no reason...but I like how you pick out the silly ones (with the exception of Benghazi...nice try) and disregard all the real ones.....like say...Trump colluding with Russia?

Doesn't it get old saying "RAWR, FOX NEWS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL?"  When was the last time you watched MSNBC?  Or read an article from CNN.com?  

[basballguy]

(05-02-2022, 05:48 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Clinton absolutely turned down multiple securityreqests for Benghazi, and its not even debatable. It is well documented.

This is page 1 of the playbook.  Say it enough times and hope people actually believe it.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-02-2022, 06:19 PM)basballguy Wrote: This is page 1 of the playbook.  Say it enough times and hope people actually believe it.  

It works. I promise.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(05-02-2022, 06:17 PM)basballguy Wrote: Doesn't it get old saying "RAWR, FOX NEWS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL?"  When was the last time you watched MSNBC?  Or read an article from CNN.com?  

I find it hilarious when conservatives poke fun at people for getting news from the media when they get their news from entertainment companies or worse.

At least MSNBC doesn't lie to people with their title. They're the only one that doesn't have News in their name. Fox News, One America News, Newsmax are all entertainment networks, not media. But knock yourself out as long as they reinforce your beliefs, amiright?

[basballguy]

(05-02-2022, 08:16 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I find it hilarious when conservatives poke fun at people for getting news from the media when they get their news from entertainment companies or worse.

At least MSNBC doesn't lie to people with their title. They're the only one that doesn't have News in their name. Fox News, One America News, Newsmax are all entertainment networks, not media. But knock yourself out as long as they reinforce your beliefs, amiright?

Your comment has literally nothing to do with what I quoted...but i'll play

CNN is owned by Warner Media Company (Well now Warner Brothers Discovery)....you know...the people that make Batman?  
But yes, you're right...MSNBC doesn't lie to people with their brand name.  They lie to people with their content.  

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(05-02-2022, 08:24 PM)basballguy Wrote: Your comment has literally nothing to do with what I quoted...but i'll play

CNN is owned by Warner Media Company (Well now Warner Brothers Discovery)....you know...the people that make Batman?  
But yes, you're right...MSNBC doesn't lie to people with their brand name.  They lie to people with their content.  

Care to provide some examples?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-02-2022, 08:33 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Care to provide some examples?

You can have this one for free.  It helps when you get news from a variety of sites and not just ones that cater to your partisan bent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/flashback-msnbc-cnn-cbs-told-viewers-hunter-biden-laptop-story-was-russian-disinformation/ar-AAVk1ZG?ocid=

Use the Google machine and you won't have trouble finding more.

[*michaelsean*]

Someday all these people who aren’t fans of Biden will disagree with something he does. Right?

[Dill]

(05-02-2022, 05:48 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Clinton absolutely turned down multiple security reqests for Benghazi, and its not even debatable. It is well documented.

I won't debate it if you can document it. Which should be easy if it is "well documented." 

Sounds like you are conflating requests sent to the State Department, which everyone agrees occurred, with requests sent directly to Hilary--a conflation which would be an intended effect of the GOP-led hearings.

But if the claim is that "Clinton absolutely turned down multiple security requests" then you need to establish that Clinton personally received the requests in question and personally turned them down. 

Claiming the State Department did this at some level, say in Tripoli, or by an under secretary at some point, will not do.

Also, are you clear on who was responsible for security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, what sort of funding it could legitimately requested, and the strategic reasons for maintaining a small footprint in Benghazi? 

[Dill]

(05-02-2022, 06:17 PM)basballguy Wrote: Last month sometime you made a reply to me about not taking what you say seriously.

Is this one of those times where you're joking?  

People don't believe wild ass theories for no reason...but I like how you pick out the silly ones (with the exception of Benghazi...nice try) and disregard all the real ones.....like say...Trump colluding with Russia?

Doesn't it get old saying "RAWR, FOX NEWS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL?"  When was the last time you watched MSNBC?  Or read an article from CNN.com?  

I'm actually watching MSNBC right now, as Rachel is covering the leaked SCOTUS opinion apparently repealing Roe vs Wade.

Indeed people don't believe wild ass theories for no reason. Nowadays there is a right wing news machine which has drawn them from the fringe to the center of US politics, and maintains fear and groupthink around them. And I don't consider these to be "silly ones" as they put politicians in power who make the country ungovernable and maintain them with a system of false equivalences--like MSNBC is somehow of the same quality as NEWSMAX and Fox, just left of center, and Hilary was as crooked as Trump.

So no, it does not get old contesting the organizations and politicians who undermine democracy. 

What do you mean when you claim that "Trump colluding with Russia" was a "real one" while Trump's Big Lie (which I mentioned in my post, and which fueled the Capitol insurrection) was a "silly one"? But Benghazi was not a silly one?

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-02-2022, 10:56 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm actually watching MSNBC right now, as Rachel is covering the leaked SCOTUS opinion apparently repealing Roe vs Wade.

Indeed people don't believe wild ass theories for no reason. Nowadays there is a right wing news machine which has drawn them from the fringe to the center of US politics, and maintains fear and groupthink around them. And I don't consider these to be "silly ones" as they put politicians in power who make the country ungovernable and maintain them with a system of false equivalences--like MSNBC is somehow of the same quality as NEWSMAX and Fox, just left of center, and Hilary was as crooked as Trump.

So no, it does not get old contesting the organizations and politicians who undermine democracy. 

What do you mean when you claim that "Trump colluding with Russia" was a "real one" while Trump's Big Lie was a "silly one"? But Benghazi was not a silly one?

Just curious, do you spend most of your evenings with Rachel?

[Dill]

(05-02-2022, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You seem to be operating on the assumption that the people involved will perform their job in a fair and equitable fashion.  Given the background of the person picked to head it I'd say that's not a safe assumption to make.  Honestly, it would be a poor assumption to make regardless of the person hired.  I just find it odd that anyone would put such blind trust in this board and its "mission."

Thanks for the response. One's understanding of "equitable" is the key here. How is Jankowics' appointment different from appointing a judge or a Secretary of the Treasury, in terms of risk to "equity"? 

What is the problem with her background? She has been researching Russian disinformation in the Ukraine, Holland and Czech Republic for years, working with their governments to draft policies which address this problem, as well as the European Parliament. She has quite a bit of experience with defensive measures which don't work, as well as problems of defining "disinformation." Recognition of her competence by Europeans lead to a chair at the Wilson Center her in the U.S., where she has also done a deal of research on how Russian disinformation has continually adapted to our efforts to thwart it in the US, and written a book on the subject. 

And what "blind trust" is being accorded this person? Is it your assumption that Jankowics' job won't be under any kind of control or review? What enforcement power do you believe is entrusted to her position?

At the moment, it looks like the board will busy itself with publicizing best practices for recognizing disinformation, and with monitoring, perhaps investigating, foreign efforts to influence U.S. elections. Distinguishing that kind of disinformation from home grown varieties won't be as easy as it was six years ago. E.g., Republicans who believe that Putin is justified in invading Ukraine to protect Russia from the biological weapons harbored there will not likely agree they have been targets of Russian disinformation, and very likely to see their free speech under partisan attack by any DHS dept. which says otherwise. That's how effective and difficult to counter such disinformation has become.

Seems to me that the administration should have anticipated what would happen if they did not clearly define the goals of the Disinformation Board and its limitations. Into that vacuum has come all manner of the very thing the board was designed to identify; the narrative of an all powerful Biden partisan calling balls and strikes on all manner of domestic policy issues is fast becoming another Fox Truth.

How valuable this seems probably depends upon how seriously one takes the threat of disinformation to functioning democracy in the U.S.  

[Dill]

(05-02-2022, 11:23 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Just curious, do you spend most of your evenings with Rachel?

I watch her frequently, but I wouldn't say regularly.

I followed her nightly through December '21 and January '22 as she was tracking the Green Bay Sweep. At that time hers was the most the most comprehensive coverage I found, growing incrementally more detailed. 

Then she went on vacation and others took over the show for several weeks. The continuity was missing so I haven't watched much since. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-03-2022, 12:02 AM)Dill Wrote: I watch her frequently, but I wouldn't say regularly.

I followed her nightly through December '21 and January '22 as she was tracking the Green Bay Sweep. At that time hers was the most the most comprehensive coverage I found, growing incrementally more detailed. 

Then she went on vacation and others took over the show for several weeks. The continuity was missing so I haven't watched much since. 

How about Newsmax? Frequently?

[Dill]

(05-03-2022, 12:06 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: How about Newsmax? Frequently?

Occasionally. Definitely not frequently. I read them and Breitbart, and World Net Daily, and watch Fox at least once a week.
In the weeks leading up to the invasion of Russia, I watched Tucker almost every night. 

Not much on the Green Bay Sweep there. They are a prime competitor of Fox, insuring the latter does not 
stray to far out of Trump orbit.

According to the awkwardly named Center for Countering Digital Hate, they, along with Russian State Media, are one of the 
top 10 sources of Facebook disinformation on climate change.

https://www.counterhate.com/_files/ugd/f4d9b9_2da34b078cbe43b6820297e3a3113f69.pdf

[Sled21]

(05-02-2022, 10:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I won't debate it if you can document it. Which should be easy if it is "well documented." 

Sounds like you are conflating requests sent to the State Department, which everyone agrees occurred, with requests sent directly to Hilary--a conflation which would be an intended effect of the GOP-led hearings.

But if the claim is that "Clinton absolutely turned down multiple security requests" then you need to establish that Clinton personally received the requests in question and personally turned them down. 

Claiming the State Department did this at some level, say in Tripoli, or by an under secretary at some point, will not do.

Also, are you clear on who was responsible for security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, what sort of funding it could legitimately requested, and the strategic reasons for maintaining a small footprint in Benghazi? 

I know you would just crap on anything from Fox I posted, so here's one from a darling of the left....PBS.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gowdy-new-benghazi-emails-show-disconnect-washington

Quote:WASHINGTON — The chairman of the panel investigating the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks said Sunday that new information reveals a “total disconnect” between the security needs of U.S. personnel on the ground and the political priorities of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department staff in Washington.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., described emails from Ambassador Chris Stevens to the State Department requesting more security almost from the moment he arrived in Libya. The request virtually crossed paths with one Clinton’s staff sent to Stevens, asking the new ambassador to read and respond to an email from a Clinton confidant, according to Gowdy. At another point, Clinton aide Victoria Nuland asked Stevens for advice on “public messaging” on the increasingly dangerous situation in the region, Gowdy said.
“He didn’t need help with (public relations), and he was asking for more security,” Gowdy said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Gowdy refused to release the emails on Sunday. But he said they point to “the total disconnect between what was happening in Libya with the escalation in violence – that we were a soft target, that there was an increase in anti-Western sentiment … while Washington is asking him to read and react to a Sidney Blumenthal email and help on how to message the violence.”
At one point, according to Gowdy, Stevens joked in an email: “Maybe we should ask another government to pay for our security upgrades because our government isn’t willing to do it.”
Gowdy described the emails as he defends his 17-month probe into the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that left Stevens and three other Americans dead, and anticipates Clinton’s long-awaited public testimony on Thursday. The event is a make-or-break moment for the investigation that even some Republicans say was designed to undermine Clinton’s second bid for president.
“I have told my own Republican colleagues and friends, shut up talking about things that you don’t know anything about,” Gowdy said Sunday on CBS.
Gowdy, a former prosecutor, insisted that his investigation is focused on the events before, during and after the deadly attacks. On Sunday, he cast Clinton as “just one out of 70” witnesses and suggested her testimony is of equal value with the others, at best. He’s only interested in Clinton’s testimony because she was secretary of state at the time of the attacks, so “you have to talk to her,” Gowdy said.
Of more interest, he suggested, is one week in June 2012 that’s covered by Stevens’ emails and is key to the investigation.
As Gowdy describes them, Stevens’ emails paint a picture of a newly installed ambassador in a consulate that’s been the target of increasing terrorist attacks. Almost immediately, he “knows that there’s been an uptick in violence, and he’s asking for more security,” Gowdy said on CBS.
“On almost exactly that day,” Clinton aide Jake Sullivan asks Stevens to read and respond to an email from Blumenthal, “who knows nothing about Libya,” Gowdy says.
Apparently additionally, Victoria Nuland, who is now assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, emailed Stevens, “and says, ‘We need help with your public messaging advice.'”

Security for Diplomatic Embassies and Consulates, etc., are responsibility of the Secretary of State. So, are you denying Stevens requested added security multiple times, or are you just suggesting Clinton was incompetent at her job. Because I don't buy for a minute she did not get briefed on his requests since Lybia was such a hotspot at the time.