Ministry of Truth?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(05-18-2022, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I understand your point, but I don't and never will operate that way.  If I say something inaccurate then please call me on it. 

  In the end, for most of the country I'd be considered a liberal, and certainly not a right winger.

What country would that be? Maybe in real life, but on here with your fake persona? No chance.

(05-18-2022, 08:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From what I've seen of your posts you don't do anything correctly.  But that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Considering the source, I appreciate the compliment.

[Benton]

Little late to the party (sorry, been busy) and I didn't read all 11 pages... but...

I'm open to the idea as misinformation is largely how wars will likely be fought going forward, how rights get repressed and how people get convinced to worry about trivial things as opposed to big issues. BUT, it should originate in Congress and should extend beyond bipartisan debates. There are dozens of parties represented in Congress and state legislatures. They would have to have a seat at any kind of a table that's going to discuss misinformation.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-17-2022, 11:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you missed my point about Prasad. YOu think it "word salad" if I say that identifying misinformation (and rather easily at that), is not the best way to argue that identifying misinformation is too difficult to entrust to government?  What do you think his argument is? 

For the history of small pox and polio vaccine have settled that. I'm glad the government steps in to insure that our food is hygienically prepared. I'm glad they protect dying people from scams like Laetrile. I'll bet Prasad agrees. So why is he using this minor example to undermine trust in government in general?   

I do not see where Dr Prasad is claiming disinformation is impossibly hard to define while defining it, so I tried to understand the asterisked part where you tried to explain it. It's a tough read. 

No where in the video did Prasad say that the number of covid deaths cannot be quantified. Rather he said that you cannot quantify that misinformation is the leading cause of covid deaths...which is exactly what Califf said @ 1:32. 

Quote:Is yours that, because one official tried to scare people into taking a serious problem seriously, government is not to be trusted with vetting and promulgating medical research/information?

My point is that when even one official tells a blatant lie, regardless of his intent, it hurts their integrity and undermines the trust that we need to have in them. Wasn't this one of Donald Trump's biggest problems? 

So you're okay with government officials telling 'Noble Lies' in order to get people to take something seriously? Given your earlier reply that "I agree with Prasad that a government official should not make such a 'wildly absurd and false claim,' even if it is not a claim like "masks don't work," which might actually lead to deaths," it sounds like we agree, and you aren't either. 


So what is YOUR argument here? 


And as much as you're trying to minimize it, it's not just one official. Dr Fauci has lied several times "for the good of the country." Also, Donald Trump was "just one guy" too. 
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html



You're also trying to minimize the power and influence that these people have. The head of the FDA and the NIH wield a lot of power and can easily influence policy. The last two years have proven it. 

Quote:For the history of small pox and polio vaccine have settled that. I'm glad the government steps in to insure that our food is hygienically prepared. I'm glad they protect dying people from scams like Laetrile. I'll bet Prasad agrees. So why is he using this minor example to undermine trust in government in general? 

This is a Red Herring and has zero relevance to the discussion and is only here to distract and to gaslight. 

Quote:As for Garland and the Mueller Report, I think the Juresic/Wittes article sums it up well enough. They give 5 reasons why Garland may or may not be acting on this.  I am fine with everything they say. What could I add? 

Again, if there truly is damning evidence that can get a prosecution, then there are no excuses to not indict Trump. Especially given the gravity of the charges and who is being charged. 

Quote:I hope you are not trying to argue that if Garland is not prosecuting, then the documented obstruction really wasn't there, and really wasn't illegal.

We don't know because Trump has not been indicted, tried, or convicted. To me, the lack of indictment speaks volumes about Garlands confidence to win a case with the evidence in the Mueller report. 

[StrictlyBiz]

Great news! Hopefully its PERMANENT 


https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/18/politics/dhs-disinformation-board-paused/index.html

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 09:17 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I do not see where Dr Prasad is claiming disinformation is impossibly hard to define while defining it, so I tried to understand the asterisked part where you tried to explain it. It's a tough read. 

No where in the video did Prasad say that the number of covid deaths cannot be quantified. Rather he said that you cannot quantify that misinformation is the leading cause of covid deaths...which is exactly what Califf said @ 1:32. 

My point is that when even one official tells a blatant lie, regardless of his intent, it hurts their integrity and undermines the trust that we need to have in them. Wasn't this one of Donald Trump's biggest problems? 

So you're okay with government officials telling 'Noble Lies' in order to get people to take something seriously? Given your earlier reply that "I agree with Prasad that a government official should not make such a 'wildly absurd and false claim,' even if it is not a claim like "masks don't work," which might actually lead to deaths," it sounds like we agree, and you aren't either. 

So what is YOUR argument here? 

And as much as you're trying to minimize it, it's not just one official. Dr Fauci has lied several times "for the good of the country." Also, Donald Trump was "just one guy" too. 
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html

You're also trying to minimize the power and influence that these people have. The head of the FDA and the NIH wield a lot of power and can easily influence policy. The last two years have proven it. 

This is a Red Herring and has zero relevance to the discussion and is only here to distract and to gaslight. 

Prasad was identifying misinformation when he critiqued Califf's tweet. He had to have at least an implicit definition to do that. And I don't dispute that he identified misinformation. So he can do it, but not government? 

The founders of the U.S., especially Madison, did not envision a government in which no officials ever lied. They thought that an impossible ideal.
They expected it. And for all that, they still understood, most of them, that governments cannot function without some level of trust.

So it has always been the case that some segment of U.S. citizens have distrusted government--up to a point. Think of Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobedience" (1848).  Only once before was that distrust so great that it lead to a civil war.  I agree with you that government lying produces mistrust, too. Vietnam and Watergate together began a seachange in the quantity and quality of U.S. citizens' distrust. 

But that understandable distrust, which could have been repaired by the better government which followed, were it not amplified and exploited by the U.S. right. Think of Rush Limbaugh telling listeners back in the '90s that there are four sources of untruth: government, universities, science and the media. That is an anti-modern stance, directed at undermining authority outside a radical and fringe wing of the Republican party, which eventually became the center of the party, pushing traditional conservatives to the fringe.  People who adopt that stance become more dependent on certain leaders for "truth." Ditto heads. Feeling and "truthiness" replace the labor of becoming informed citizens who must assess issues themselves, based on their understanding of and respect for principles and institutions of democracy (a free press being one of these),and canons of logic and evidence. Truthy conspiracy theories gain enough mass to sway elections to those who know how to manipulate mis-/disinformation.

I think I can wrap up all the Fauci and "red herring" points/claims you make above if I can get your answer to some questions about government authority.

If there were another pandemic on the COVID scale, but worse, with Ebola-type effects and death rate, in your view--

1. Should ANYONE AT ALL inform the public about it? E.g., if doctors and researchers dealing with it have information which, if generally known, might prevent its spread and save lives, how should that information be assessed and handled? Or should it be at all, given at least some "misinformation" will be generated in the process? Should we let whatever will happen happen, rather than risk government misinformation by empowering public officials to oversee and direct a response? 

2. If researchers discover the new plague came from Iceland, communicated by passengers from Iceland Air, should anyone be empowered to stop air traffic from Iceland? Infringe on passenger privacy by testing/quarantining them? Suppose it first appears in Florida, should officials in that state warn others? And warn them with what? Who is vetting the information? Should we leave it to individual doctors in Florida calling their friends in other states, or even just other hospitals in state, and hope for the best? 

3. What if there is a medical consensus that some activity many enjoy, like eating beef or fishing, has to be constrained to stop the spread and save lives? People who don't eat beef or fish are unaffected, but those who like these activities would have to sacrifice for the greater good, should they heed the medical advice; and their heeding would affect the bottom line of those who produce beef and sell fishing gear.  In such cases, absent some central coercive power, the general good would be dependent upon the individual choices of beef eaters and fishermen. Maybe most would willingly sacrifice--though surely not if they have no trustworthy information about the disease, just rumors from people returning from Florida vacations. 

4. Is there any point in the above where you think government should or could effectively "kick in" to insure that info about the disease is vetted and made public, and that its progress is tracked nation wide as well as globally to update citizens. Finally, is there any point at all where coercive power to ban activities and quarantine people should kick in?  I.e., could the danger of spread ever justify the risk of powerful government officials tweeting misinformation? Or do you envision some kind of non-governmental entity accomplishing the above? E.g., corporations or ad hoc citizens groups, or professional organizations like the AMA? 

This is not a "quiz" with right or wrong answers I can ambush you with. Rather, I just want to know where you stand, what you think government does, could or shouldn't do. Right now I have no idea whether you think it should have any power at all to define and manage threats. 

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 09:20 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Great news! Hopefully its PERMANENT 


https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/18/politics/dhs-disinformation-board-paused/index.html

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 09:17 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:As for Garland and the Mueller Report, I think the Juresic/Wittes article sums it up well enough. They give 5 reasons why Garland may or may not be acting on this.  I am fine with everything they say. What could I add? 

Again, if there truly is damning evidence that can get a prosecution, then there are no excuses to not indict Trump. Especially given the gravity of the charges and who is being charged. 

Quote:I hope you are not trying to argue that if Garland is not prosecuting, then the documented obstruction really wasn't there, and really wasn't illegal.

We don't know because Trump has not been indicted, tried, or convicted. To me, the lack of indictment speaks volumes about Garlands confidence to win a case with the evidence in the Mueller report. 

So what are you doing here? 

Are you faulting Garland for NOT indicting when you think he should?

Or are you, as I wondered, arguing that if Trump has not been indicted then there must not be a case there, and that's why Garland has no "confidence"? Not because (as J and W suggest in one of their hypotheses) the DOJ is swamped with other Trump damage--1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep? 

That's why I am asking you if you agree or disagree that Trump did what Mueller said he did,

and if you agree, whether you think Trump's actions were against the law. 

If you don't think they were against the law, would you also argue that they shouldn't be--that a president who obstructs an investigation
into his actions is well within his rights, and shouldn't be subject to accountability? 

If we agree with Mueller that Trump did what he did, and if we agree with the law that it was wrong,
then I don't see how one could argue back from non prosecution to say "no case there." 

[StoneTheCrow]

Ha. Ha. Ha. That crazy eyed shooting star burned too bright too fast. Last one to leave turn the lights out please.

[Dill]

(05-15-2022, 03:31 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: You also left out sanctions and the pipeline. Why focus only on 1/3 of the evidence? Kyle is dead right in that assessment. It defies the logic that Trump is a Putin puppet. It always has. If you still actually (or ever) believe(d) that Trump is a Putin puppet, then I have no words. It only ever made sense to those with a deep, unhealthy, and irrational hatred of him. 

Back to K.K. and Russiagate,

1. Can you cite some MSM journalists who actually said Trump was "Putin's puppet," as opposed to an unwitting asset? "Puppet" here would be someone who could be counted on to take orders from Putin, requiring some link of communication, or perhaps some quid pro quo, like the hotel in Moscow Trump wants; while "unwitting asset" would be someone who helped Putin by creating chaos and division, especially within his own government and intel agencies, and in American foreign policy--all while needing no direct prompting from Putin at all. So in the choice between the chaos candidate and Hillary or Biden, it would always be Trump. That choice would require no collusion.

2. But K. says it "defies logic" to think of Trump as helpful to Putin.  So let's look at his perfunctorily stated evidence that Trump is no Putin stooge.

1) he sent more troops to Syria, supposedly to "combat Russian influence." But Obama first sent troops there to fight ISIS, and Mattis resigned because Trump was pulling them out after Al Baghdadi was killed, leaving hundreds of our Kurdish allies to be killed by the Turks. 

2) Trump imposed sanctions on Russia; how does THAT help Putin? Well, as I understand it, Trump's first NSC advisor told the Russians, secretly and illegally, that Trump would mitigate sanctions once he got into office. And then he lied about the meeting to the FBI. (Not to worry; Trump dangled a pardon in front of Flynn which ended his cooperation with the FBI, then DID pardon him.) Congress had to work around Trump resistance to keep up sanctions and add them when Putin's behavior triggered more.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/trump-russia-sanctions-chemical-weapons-spy-poisoning/index.html
Are we sure Trump WANTED to sanction backers of Nordstream 2 when that was the initiative of Congress? 

3) TRUMP SENT MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE!!! Hannity and others say this is more proof he was tougher than Obama, who actually initiated many of the Russia sanctions Trump wanted to end or reduce. Yet Trump added a little reported codicil that the Javelins sent could not be used against the Russian-backed separatists, for whom the Ukrainians requested military aid in the first place. Trump sent them missiles--on condition they couldn't use them. One does not have to be a master of geopolitics to see how that helps Putin. https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-leaving-out-key-detail-trump-javelin-sale-to-ukraine-2019-11

One could add a number of points to this: how does publicly questioning the legitimacy of NATO harm Putin, or withholding aid to Ukraine--disrupting U.S. policy and their defense for his election campaign-- or engaging in private, unmonitored discussions with Putin and Lavrov; or discrediting US intel services on the world stage in favor of Putin's credibility; and finally, refusing to acknowledge Russian interference in the 2016 election--during which voting equipment was hacked in all 50 states--leaving our DHS and FBI to take up the slack without leadership from the top guy, working around him so as not to upset him. What's NOT for Putin to like?

The only evidence that I am aware of that Trump ever created difficulties for Putin was Fiona Hill's testimony that P found Trump's ignorance frustrating. He had to keep re-explaining issues to him--https://ca.style.yahoo.com/fiona-hill-says-putin-got-202020224.html

K. also finds the claim Putin was "Directing an influence operation" during the last election to be hopelessly vague. He wonders if that means Putin was controlling Troll farms or something. And he asserts "probably" means the CIA and FBI have no evidence. Plenty of other bad stuff Trump did, like cutting taxes on the rich, so the press should not be wasting time on foreign disinformation campaigns designed to put and keep him in power.

Sorry Biz, but this guy has not taken the trouble to inform himself about these topics at all. After falling for Barr's misdirect in the previous video you sent me,  you'd think he might have become more cautious. But here his still raging about Russiagate as the "liberal Q Anon" for investigating whether Trump appears to favor and even protect the Russia dictator whenever he can. The Dems are now a "center right" party he says, engaged in "literal McCarthyism."

[StrictlyBiz]

Steele Dossier, pee tape, Alpha Bank Server

Right back at ya.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-19-2022, 07:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Prasad was identifying misinformation when he critiqued Califf's tweet. He had to have at least an implicit definition to do that. And I don't dispute that he identified misinformation. So he can do it, but not government? 

Whoa! I think you may have just accidentally tripped over the entire point.

Sure both can do it. That's not the issue. But it's what is done with the misinformation after your identification of it, that IS the issue. 

What can Prasad do with it? 
Write some articles and make a few videos that people can CHOOSE to listen to or not listen to.

What can THE GOVERNMENT do with it? 
Make policy that people will be FORCED to listen to. 

What makes Califf's opinion on this matter any more legitimate or important than Prasad's? Check Prasad's CV and credentials. They're impressive. They're both equally qualified, but because Califf has been appointed to a government position, his opinion has a potentially greater impact than Prasad's.  

I find it interesting that you're more concerned with the impact of misinformation originating from singular sources and spreading upward through social media over the impact of misinformation originating from the highest forms of government and being FORCED downward through policy.  

[Dill]

(05-20-2022, 09:52 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Whoa! I think you may have just accidentally tripped over the entire point.

Sure both can do it. That's not the issue. But it's what is done with the misinformation after your identification of it, that IS the issue. 

What can Prasad do with it? 
Write some articles and make a few videos that people can CHOOSE to listen to or not listen to.

What can THE GOVERNMENT do with it? 
Make policy that people will be FORCED to listen to. 

What makes Califf's opinion on this matter any more legitimate or important than Prasad's? Check Prasad's CV and credentials. They're impressive. They're both equally qualified, but because Califf has been appointed to a government position, his opinion has a potentially greater impact than Prasad's.  

I find it interesting that you're more concerned with the impact of misinformation originating from singular sources and spreading upward through social media over the impact of misinformation originating from the highest forms of government and being FORCED downward through policy.  

I am concerned with "misinformation originating from singular sources" because among those singular sources appear to be hostile governments and people deliberately misinforming voters--successfully--for electoral advantage. To get that advantage they need to undermine other sources of authority foundational to maintaining a modern liberal democracy, among them science and the free press. "It's all opinion and opinions are all equal--who is empowered to say otherwise?"

And if you read my post #205, then you remember I just told you that I think there is no way there can ever be a government that doesn't "misinform" to some degree. So the question I put to you is whether there should be ANY power of government at all, given the impossibility of government officials who never misinform. I think impossible to create a police dept. impervious to corruption and class/race bias. But I don't therefore conclude that police should have no more power to enforce laws than anyone else, or that there should be no police. Just let the community handle it (here's your AR, Biz; let's clean up this neighborhood). Despite the occasional Ferguson, I'm generally more concerned with crime flowing upward from "single sources." 

That's why I asked you the 4 questions below. I cannot really tell how far your problem goes with the government's ability to "force" listening.

Should there be ANY position which as a greater impact than someone else's when it comes to pandemic response? Should there be any position or power AT ALL to winnow good information from bad, to centralize data collection, to determine vectors of transmission, etc.? Is it better to just let doctors talk on tv and then follow the competing advice we like best? If so, who selects those doctors--the media market? I cannot say much more until I know WHERE you think government authority/power can be or is legitimately deployed to stop a pandemic, or WHETHER you think it can be legitimately deployed at all.

(05-19-2022, 07:53 PM)Dill Wrote: If there were another pandemic on the COVID scale, but worse, with Ebola-type effects and death rate, in your view--

1. Should ANYONE AT ALL inform the public about it? E.g., if doctors and researchers dealing with it have information which, if generally known, might prevent its spread and save lives, how should that information be assessed and handled? Or should it be at all, given at least some "misinformation" will be generated in the process? Should we let whatever will happen happen, rather than risk government misinformation by empowering public officials to oversee and direct a response? 

2. If researchers discover the new plague came from Iceland, communicated by passengers from Iceland Air, should anyone be empowered to stop air traffic from Iceland? Infringe on passenger privacy by testing/quarantining them? Suppose it first appears in Florida, should officials in that state warn others? And warn them with what? Who is vetting the information? Should we leave it to individual doctors in Florida calling their friends in other states, or even just other hospitals in state, and hope for the best? 

3. What if there is a medical consensus that some activity many enjoy, like eating beef or fishing, has to be constrained to stop the spread and save lives? People who don't eat beef or fish are unaffected, but those who like these activities would have to sacrifice for the greater good, should they heed the medical advice; and their heeding would affect the bottom line of those who produce beef and sell fishing gear.  In such cases, absent some central coercive power, the general good would be dependent upon the individual choices of beef eaters and fishermen. Maybe most would willingly sacrifice--though surely not if they have no trustworthy information about the disease, just rumors from people returning from Florida vacations. 

4. Is there any point in the above where you think government should or could effectively "kick in" to insure that info about the disease is vetted and made public, and that its progress is tracked nation wide as well as globally to update citizens. Finally, is there any point at all where coercive power to ban activities and quarantine people should kick in?  I.e., could the danger of spread ever justify the risk of powerful government officials tweeting misinformation? Or do you envision some kind of non-governmental entity accomplishing the above? E.g., corporations or ad hoc citizens groups, or professional organizations like the AMA? 

This is not a "quiz" with right or wrong answers I can ambush you with. Rather, I just want to know where you stand, what you think government does, could or shouldn't do. Right now I have no idea whether you think it should have any power at all to define and manage threats. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-20-2022, 11:00 AM)Dill Wrote: That's why I asked you the 4 questions below. I cannot really tell how far your problem goes with the government's ability to "force" listening.

Should there be ANY position which as a greater impact than someone else's when it comes to pandemic response? Should there be any position or power AT ALL to winnow good information from bad, to centralize data collection, to determine vectors of transmission, etc.? Is it better to just let doctors talk on tv and then follow the competing advice we like best? If so, who selects those doctors--the media market? I cannot say much more until I know WHERE you think government authority/power can be or is legitimately deployed to stop a pandemic, or WHETHER you think it can be legitimately deployed at all.

Gve me time. I gots shit to do. I'll break your essays down as I can instead of spending an hour in front of the computer. Especially since I lost my own essay yesterday. 

[Dill]

(05-20-2022, 07:00 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Steele Dossier, pee tape, Alpha Bank Server

Right back at ya.

No. 

That stuff is not "right back at me" if my point is that a foreign power which has been using

cyber disinformation to sow chaos during election cycles, striving to tip elections, 

will be happy that a dept. responsible for identifying and monitoring that disinformation has been paused. 

Putin would have to appreciate the irony that "protecting our freedom" in this manner further enables him to undermine it. 

And it is not Kyle Kulinski or Sean Hannity out there determining whether irregular communications link Trump to Russia, or not,
but government officials, whose power to sort information from mis-/disinformation everyone is relying on in the cases
you mention. You are apparently relying on it as well. 

Putin is happy whenever the credibility of the FBI is undermined, and most happy when it was the president of the U.S. doing so.

[Dill]

(05-20-2022, 11:11 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Gve me time. I gots shit to do. I'll break your essays down as I can instead of spending an hour in front of the computer. Especially since I lost my own essay yesterday. 

No rush. I'm retired and probably have more time than others. I often wait days or weeks before responding to a post. 

I too have lost essays--some which refuted Hollo and SSF decisively and permanently. 

But that rich trove has been lost to posterity and now everyone just has to take my word for it. 

So since then I have taken to composing longer answers on word documents. I can also work them over time, peck away at them in moments for free time. I suggest that. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Some good news that this board has been put on "pause" and Nina Jankowicz has been let go from her post.  This is good news, as illustrated by this article about her from left leaning publication The Nation:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/meet-the-head-of-bidens-new-disinformation-governing-board/

"But there’s no need to engage in hypotheticals to understand the dangers. One has to only consider the past of Nina Jankowicz, the head of the new disinformation board.

Jankowicz’s experience as a disinformation warrior includes her work with StopFake, a US government-funded “anti-disinformation” organization founded in March 2014 and lauded as a model of how to combat Kremlin lies. Four years later, StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes.

Today, StopFake is an official Facebook fact-checking partner, which gives it the power to censor news, while Jankowicz is America’s disinformation czar."

There is, of course, more and if you take the time to read it you'll, hopefully, have an understanding of both why this board was a bad idea and naming this woman to head it an even worse one.  Here's the news about the board being put on pause, written, predictably by Taylor Lorenz.  BTW, the comments section is literally left wing blindness and propaganda 101.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/

For some reasons those defending this board and the partisan actor originally assigned to head it have yet to address this article about her utter unsuitability for such a role.  From a left leaning news source.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-19-2022, 07:53 PM)Dill Wrote: If there were another pandemic on the COVID scale, but worse, with Ebola-type effects and death rate, in your view--

1. Should ANYONE AT ALL inform the public about it? E.g., if doctors and researchers dealing with it have information which, if generally known, might prevent its spread and save lives, how should that information be assessed and handled? 

YES

2. If researchers discover the new plague came from Iceland, communicated by passengers from Iceland Air, should anyone be empowered to stop air traffic from Iceland? Infringe on passenger privacy by testing/quarantining them? 

YES

3. What if there is a medical consensus that some activity many enjoy, like eating beef or fishing, has to be constrained to stop the spread and save lives? People who don't eat beef or fish are unaffected, but those who like these activities would have to sacrifice for the greater good, should they heed the medical advice; and their heeding would affect the bottom line of those who produce beef and sell fishing gear.  In such cases, absent some central coercive power, the general good would be dependent upon the individual choices of beef eaters and fishermen. Maybe most would willingly sacrifice--though surely not if they have no trustworthy information about the disease, just rumors from people returning from Florida vacations. 

This is a thinly veiled analogy about Covid. I hope you're not suggesting that Ebola and Covid are even remotely in the same ballpark. 

4. Is there any point in the above where you think government should or could effectively "kick in" to insure that info about the disease is vetted and made public, and that its progress is tracked nation wide as well as globally to update citizens. Finally, is there any point at all where coercive power to ban activities and quarantine people should kick in?  I.e., could the danger of spread ever justify the risk of powerful government officials tweeting misinformation? Or do you envision some kind of non-governmental entity accomplishing the above? E.g., corporations or ad hoc citizens groups, or professional organizations like the AMA? 

Yes, but an extremely high bar needs to be met. So high that, beyond the first few months, it wasn't met during the pandemic and became exponentially decreasingly met after the vaccine became widely available. An Ebola-type scenario might warrant it. 

(I have a felling that this thread is headed off on another tangent that is going to last several more pages )

**Im going to revisit and edit this**
There are several questions here and a simple qualified "yes" to all of them isn't the right answer.

'Info vetted' where? On social media? No, I don't ever envision anything bad enough to silence free speech.

'Coercive power to ban activities'....Yes, but a very very high bar has to be set. My original answer applies to this particular question.

"Coercive power to quarantine'.....No Absolutely not. 

Answering 'yes' to these questions really highlights and underscores why it isn't 'ok' for the Government to traffic in, accidentally or not, disinformation, even if it is 'just one guy.' There needs to be trust in the institutions in scenario's like these.

Dr Fauci is 'just one guy' but he has caused irreparable damage to the trust in government health agencies. Don't bullshit people about masks, tell them the truth. Even if it's a Noble Lie told because he was worried about having enough masks for HC workers. Then the whopper about moving the goalpost for reaching herd immunity just killed it. Don't lie and spread misinformation to the people like that. Be honest and straightforward. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-19-2022, 08:14 PM)Dill Wrote: So what are you doing here? 

Are you faulting Garland for NOT indicting when you think he should?

Or are you, as I wondered, arguing that if Trump has not been indicted then there must not be a case there, and that's why Garland has no "confidence"? Not because (as J and W suggest in one of their hypotheses) the DOJ is swamped with other Trump damage--1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep? 

The Statute of Limitations has already expired on several of the charges in the Mueller Report with several more expiring by the end of summer. 

Why if there was anything that Garland thought significant enough and was a strong enough case to win against Trump, would he not indict, especially given that their SOLs are expiring? 

Lol, that makes zero sense. It's now or never with several of the charges in the MR. Given the SOLs, don't you think that those crimes should take precedence over 1/6 and the GB Sweep? You and J and W are suggesting that they're going to just give up on the chance to ever prosecute the crimes in the Mueller Report because of 1/6 whose SOLs won't be expiring for another 4 plus years. 

Quote:That's why I am asking you if you agree or disagree that Trump did what Mueller said he did,


and if you agree, whether you think Trump's actions were against the law. 

If you don't think they were against the law, would you also argue that they shouldn't be--that a president who obstructs an investigation
into his actions is well within his rights, and shouldn't be subject to accountability? 

If we agree with Mueller that Trump did what he did, and if we agree with the law that it was wrong,
then I don't see how one could argue back from non prosecution to say "no case there." 

Sure, to read the MR I would probably say 'yeah it sounds like Trump did those things. And yes if he did, they're against the law.' But at this point and until they're proven in a court of law, they're really just accusations. It's one side. So to say that he definitively did them....? IDK. Give me a trial, then I will KNOW for sure. But Garland isn't doing that and his opportunity to do so is rapidly evaporating. So really, we can talk until we're blue in the face, but we will never really know for sure. 

Show. Me. The indictment. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-19-2022, 11:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Back to K.K. and Russiagate,

1. Can you cite some MSM journalists who actually said Trump was "Putin's puppet," as opposed to an unwitting asset? "Puppet" here would be someone who could be counted on to take orders from Putin, requiring some link of communication, or perhaps some quid pro quo, like the hotel in Moscow Trump wants; while "unwitting asset" would be someone who helped Putin by creating chaos and division, especially within his own government and intel agencies, and in American foreign policy--all while needing no direct prompting from Putin at all. So in the choice between the chaos candidate and Hillary or Biden, it would always be Trump. That choice would require no collusion.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/if-trump-isnt-putins-puppet-why-does-he-act-he-msna944701
That took about 3 nanoseconds on google. 

Quote:he sent more troops to Syria, supposedly to "combat Russian influence." But Obama first sent troops there to fight ISIS, and Mattis resigned because Trump was pulling them out after Al Baghdadi was killed, leaving hundreds of our Kurdish allies to be killed by the Turks. 

Do you think that it was a bad idea for Biden to pull troops out of Afghanistan? 
Answer carefully (this should be interesting). 

Even so, that's beside the point. You're deflecting. You're minimizing what Trump did that was counter to the Putin puppet/asset narrative (sending MORE troops to Syria) by crediting Obama for sending them originally and highlighting the consequences of the withdrawal. 

Quote:2) Trump imposed sanctions on Russia; how does THAT help Putin? Well, as I understand it, Trump's first NSC advisor told the Russians, secretly and illegally, that Trump would mitigate sanctions once he got into office. 

He wouldn't be the first President.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8
(playing the diversion game is fun!)

Quote:3) TRUMP SENT MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE!!! Hannity and others say this is more proof he was tougher than Obama, who actually initiated many of the Russia sanctions Trump wanted to end or reduce. Yet Trump added a little reported codicil that the Javelins sent could not be used against the Russian-backed separatists, for whom the Ukrainians requested military aid in the first place. Trump sent them missiles--on condition they couldn't use them. One does not have to be a master of geopolitics to see how that helps Putin. https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-leaving-out-key-detail-trump-javelin-sale-to-ukraine-2019-1

Bullshit. This is misinformation. 
It helps if you read the actual Physical Security and Accountability Plan CLICK HERE 
It plainly says they can be used "In the event of hostilities or imminent hostilities" in paragraph 10. Says nothing about not using them against separatists. In fact, at the time, France 24 (a LEFT leaning news org) reported that was why they were specifically sold to the Ukrainians. HERE 


On a side note, the article that you linked said that "Under the rules of the sale, the Javelin missiles have to be stored in western Ukraine, which is far from the frontlines of the ongoing conflict in the eastern part of the country"

This again is complete bullshit and misinformation 
No where in the PSaA Plan does it say that. It does lay out specific requirements in section 1 that they are required to be stored in facilities meet the same requirements for storage that are required in the US. The nearest facility to meet that requirement was in the western part of the state and thats why there were "required" to be there. 

You were mislead by misinformation. You need better sources. 

Quote:The only evidence that I am aware of that Trump ever created difficulties for Putin was Fiona Hill's testimony that P found Trump's ignorance frustrating. He had to keep re-explaining issues to him--https://ca.style.yahoo.com/fiona-hill-says-putin-got-202020224.html

Did you sleep through Trump pressuring that construction of the Nord Stream pipeline be shut down? 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-20-2022, 11:21 AM)Dill Wrote: No. 

That stuff is not "right back at me" if my point is that a foreign power which has been using

cyber disinformation to sow chaos during election cycles, striving to tip elections, 

will be happy that a dept. responsible for identifying and monitoring that disinformation has been paused. 

Putin would have to appreciate the irony that "protecting our freedom" in this manner further enables him to undermine it. 

And it is not Kyle Kulinski or Sean Hannity out there determining whether irregular communications link Trump to Russia, or not,
but government officials, whose power to sort information from mis-/disinformation everyone is relying on in the cases
you mention. You are apparently relying on it as well. 

Putin is happy whenever the credibility of the FBI is undermined, and most happy when it was the president of the U.S. doing so.

Yes. Yes it's the same. It's Russian disinformation designed to affect the outcome of our election. It's just delivered differently. One through cyber channels, the other through Clinton operatives and an obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitated it because they hated Trump.