Kuribo64
Views: 8,229,673 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
04-20-18 04:27 PM
Guest:

0 users reading Election fraud | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Election fraud New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
StapleButter
Posted on 09-15-16 06:29 PM Link | #77419
Exactly.

Unfortunately, history repeats itself, revolutions have already happened all over the world.

As much as we can't directly engage in fights against modern police forces unless we get the hold of efficient weapons, we still have power. The capitalist system needs us to function. Its foundations are already cracking, a mass action could be enough to make it collapse.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-15-16 06:38 PM (rev. 2 of 09-15-16 06:39 PM) Link | #77420
I've recently been part of a Facebook group discussing ideas to shut down the capitalist system. Some of the ideas include boycotting products, refusing to work, and civil disobedience (such as blocking roads). These would be impactful, but there are two major problems with feasibly organizing it:

* Not enough people are invested enough to care. Without a sufficient mass movement, these ideas just fizzle out and everyone who does participate risked their livelihood for nothing.

* Some of these tactics, especially civil disobedience, just turn people against our cause.

It's quite possible that people will need to get a lot more desperate before they start organizing en masse. Not enough people know or care about how dire the situation really is. Part of this is Stockholm syndrome (after living in society for so long, it doesn't seem that bad), part of it's apathy, and part of it is ignorance, largely thanks to a media that doesn't do its job of informing people.

There's some progress, like the prison strikes and DAPL protests you wrote about in that other thread. But we need to start connecting all of these efforts together, forming a unified movement that will take on capitalist society. And it needs to happen soon, or it'll be too late to stop our extinction, be it from war, exhaustion of resources, or climate change.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-15-16 06:47 PM (rev. 2 of 09-15-16 06:49 PM) Link | #77421
Pretty much.

The media only show what they want you to know. Carefully selected drama. Scaring people into thinking the world is terrible. Turning people into pointless fights (like "eating meat ruins the Earth"). Dividing the masses.

DAPL lockdown. Facebook censors the livestream of it.

Haha, so much for democracy or freedom of speech.


Boycots would be a good way to go. But the main issue is that a lot of people consider their own comfort before the interests of the masses. "I want a McBurger" vs "McDonalds deserves boycot for exploiting prisoners".


The fact there's a lot of anarchists in those movements doesn't help. It'll be looked at like a few marginal weirdos causing trouble to get attention.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Hiccup
Posted on 09-15-16 07:58 PM (rev. 2 of 09-15-16 07:58 PM) Link | #77432
Not all media is trying to promote a hidden agenda all the time, though.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-15-16 08:05 PM (rev. 2 of 09-15-16 08:06 PM) Link | #77435
Posted by Hiccup
Not all media is trying to promote a hidden agenda all the time, though.


The media has a profit bias, which manifests in multiple ways. At a superficial level, they'll focus on stories that manipulate our emotions in order to sell well, preying on sensationalism, fear, and negativity bias. But as profitable institutions, they want to protect their own interests, and that manifests in how they cover/ignore political issues, as well as how they have fluff pieces to divert our attention from serious topics.

Hiccup
Posted on 09-16-16 04:36 AM Link | #77453
Indeed, but some are much better than others.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-16-16 06:35 AM Link | #77458
Posted by Hiccup
Indeed, but some are much better than others.


I dispute that. Nearly every mainstream media source is just as bad.

Hiccup
Posted on 09-16-16 07:22 AM (rev. 2 of 09-16-16 07:22 AM) Link | #77461
Huh? So you are saying that, for example, BBC News is just as bad as Fox News?

I'm not saying there are a lot of reasonable news sources, but there are some okay ones.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-16-16 11:17 AM Link | #77464
Posted by Hiccup
Huh? So you are saying that, for example, BBC News is just as bad as Fox News?

I'm not saying there are a lot of reasonable news sources, but there are some okay ones.


I'm referring to mainstream media within the US. Foreign outlets tend to be better.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 09-16-16 07:14 PM Link | #77494
Posted by Marionumber1
I dispute that. Nearly every mainstream media source is just as bad.

I think Fox News is the worst, but all of them have their flavors of bad. They all distort and report on irrelevant things and care more about ratings than accuracy. Fox News outright lies, though, and I don't think other news outlets (maybe outside the batshit insane nonmainstream stuff) does this to this extent.

I enjoy listening to NPR / KPCC though. It seems like they cover better than the mainstream news since it's more in-depth. News outlets tend to be disappointing for me because of how little time they cover on subjects. I also enjoy reading newspapers, articles, and articles from desktop magazines like TIME, but I remain skeptical.

By the way, depressing read, Marionumber1.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-16-16 07:18 PM Link | #77495
Oh also:

I've recently been part of a Facebook group discussing ideas to shut down the capitalist system. Some of the ideas include boycotting products, refusing to work, and civil disobedience (such as blocking roads).

Boycotting products is only possible within a certain limit. You do need food and other shit. You can avoid buying iPhones though.

Refusing to work means you make no money, which makes it hard to survive in the current system.

Civil disobedience, pretty much like the rest, requires organizing it and striking as a big, powerful group. Otherwise you go down as the local anarchist weirdo and noone cares.

The way to go is convincing people. As much as possible.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-16-16 09:59 PM (rev. 4 of 09-16-16 10:17 PM) Link | #77508
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I think Fox News is the worst, but all of them have their flavors of bad. They all distort and report on irrelevant things and care more about ratings than accuracy. Fox News outright lies, though, and I don't think other news outlets (maybe outside the batshit insane nonmainstream stuff) does this to this extent.

I enjoy listening to NPR / KPCC though. It seems like they cover better than the mainstream news since it's more in-depth. News outlets tend to be disappointing for me because of how little time they cover on subjects. I also enjoy reading newspapers, articles, and articles from desktop magazines like TIME, but I remain skeptical.

By the way, depressing read, Marionumber1.


Fox has the most obviously bad media coverage, but other outlets do it more subtly. Every mainstream media outlet in the US, both TV and newspaper, has an establishment bias. The policy discussion is framed in a way that makes right-wing (neoliberal and interventionist) policies seem like the indisputable norm. And candidates who support those policies, like Hillary Clinton, are favored in the media's political coverage, especially the opinion pieces of newspaper editorial boards and pundits.

A really egregious example happened recently. Rand Paul was being interviewed on CNN, and he mentioned that we should stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is using them to bomb civilians and hospitals in Yemen. Wolf Blitzer, the interviewer, responded with concern over the military-industrial complex jobs that would be lost - not the Middle Easterners being massacred.

Every day, I read the Washington Post and look at the editorial section. What do I see? Around 5 articles attacking Trump, and nearly nothing critical of Hillary.

Take the Clinton Foundation scandal, which is all about how Hillary sold State Department favors. It's barely been covered by mainstream outlets, and when they finally did (after it became impossible to ignore), they still tried to downplay it. The Washington Post laughably called it less serious than Bob McDonnell's corruption scandal.

There's also the media's coverage of election fraud. I'm assuming you hadn't really heard of the issue before I brought it up in this K64 post. Why didn't the media investigate and report on such a serious issue? Countless concerns about election integrity were unearthed during the Democratic primaries, but the media either ignored them or wrote disparaging hit pieces that dismissed it all as "conspiracy theory".

And then, suddenly, it all changed. The DNC email leaks happened in late July, and the media immediately pinned it on Russia, with scant/no evidence. Soon they began spreading the narrative that Russia might tamper with our election results. The security issues with voting machines have been well-known for over a decade, but the media barely touched them. Suddenly, they're bringing in computer security experts (who have been raising the alarm for years) to introduce this shocking new threat to our democracy.

So they ignored and maligned concerns about election fraud while Bernie Sanders (a true progressive candidate) was running. But now that Bernie has had the election stolen from him, the media is pushing those concerns itself for the November election. What exactly caused this change? There are several reasons:

* Convincing people that Russia is an existential threat to the US. This makes war with them more palatable, something that neocons (including Hillary) clearly want. Hillary has advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria, where Russian planes are flying, and threatened hackers with a military response right after blaming Russia for the DNC hacks.

* Delegitimizing Trump's victory if he wins. The media has focused a lot on Trump's connections to and praise of Vladimir Putin, so a Trump victory could be challenged as the result of Russian interference in our elections.

* Misinforming the public about election fraud. First of all, the constant focus on Russia being the perpetrators is highly misleading: the greatest threat comes from insiders in the US, who have direct physical access to the machines. And the media is proposing fake solutions to the prospect of election rigging: using machines with paper trails (these can still easily be hacked) and having the DHS oversee them (which could take away public oversight, and lead to the nationalization of elections under the war profiteering industry that the DHS is part of).

So even if it's less obvious than Fox's outright lies, mainstream media reporting is more like propaganda for the political and economic establishment.

And yes, my previous post was quite depressing. But I want everyone to know the reality we're facing, since we need to be aware of exactly what we must fight for.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-17-16 05:45 AM Link | #77516
Russia. Hah. Are we back to the Cold War?

I doubt Russia really cares about USA anymore tbh.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Hiccup
Posted on 09-17-16 05:58 AM (rev. 2 of 09-17-16 05:58 AM) Link | #77518
@Marionumber1
Indeed. US news appears to be nearly all terrible. Just the way some of the "news"readers talk on TV "news" is sickening.

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-17-16 11:24 AM Link | #77524
Posted by StapleButter
Russia. Hah. Are we back to the Cold War?

I doubt Russia really cares about USA anymore tbh.


Russia has indicated they see the US as the only superpower, someone they don't want to mess with. But that hasn't stopped our foreign policy leaders from antagonizing Russia. We've built up our military right on their borders, and attempted or instigated coups against their regional allies. Of course Russia is going to challenge the US's military overreach. So our foreign policy establishment, using the media as a PR tool, is now bringing us to the brink of war with them.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 09-17-16 03:06 PM Link | #77537
Even if Russia hacked into DNC e-mails, they're only showing the content of the e-mail. So it's weird to think Russia is tampering with the election when they're only exposing the DNC (of course, exposing the DNC is a strategy) for being rigged.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-17-16 03:14 PM Link | #77539
heh


it's an effective technique -- diverting people over those wars ensures they don't pay attention to shit that's happening in their country. directing all focus to extreme dictatorships makes people be glad they're not living there, which makes them think "yay USA is democratic and good".


so it's said that Trump is the one with links to Russia. if Russia had any interest into haxing USA elections, they'd make Trump win, wouldn't they? except it doesn't seem to be what's happening.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 09-17-16 03:40 PM (rev. 2 of 09-17-16 03:40 PM) Link | #77543
I have to be skeptical of that source because it posted one article on Monsanto... which isn't really a good sign on its stance on genetically-engineered organisms. They're actually anti-GMO. Note the scare image and the language around glyphosate (i.e. Roundup), which is actually less toxic than caffine (in LD50's ratings, glyphosate's 5600 mg/kg compared to caffeine's 192 mg/kg) The scientific consensus on GMOs is that they're safe to consume. GMOs might even be a benefit to society and to the environment. Not even Bernie Sanders has this stance on GMOs (he supports labeling, but I view it as a trojan horse into anti-GMO nonscience).

But that's another topic. I like to pry my hands on that article, but not now. *shrug*.
Now, it doesn't necessarily discredit everything, but I have my skeptical radars up.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-17-16 03:45 PM Link | #77544
bleh. maybe we want to eat natural things with no stinkin' GMO or glyphosate in them.

otherwise, might as well consume perfectly artificial and capitalist food. which would be what would happen if we killed the ecosystem.


but eh, that's getting offtopic.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Marionumber1
Posted on 09-17-16 04:02 PM Link | #77545
Posted by StapleButter
heh


it's an effective technique -- diverting people over those wars ensures they don't pay attention to shit that's happening in their country. directing all focus to extreme dictatorships makes people be glad they're not living there, which makes them think "yay USA is democratic and good".


War does indeed serve as a distraction, but it relies on people having a superficial knowledge of them. If people truly knew what the US was doing overseas - violating human rights and international law - it would be hard to maintain public support for our foreign policy. Neocons (aided by the media) work to keep people ignorant of our crimes, believing that we're fighting a just war against evil dictators and terrorists.

so it's said that Trump is the one with links to Russia. if Russia had any interest into haxing USA elections, they'd make Trump win, wouldn't they? except it doesn't seem to be what's happening.


Yep, the election fraud that's gone on has been for the benefit of Hillary Clinton (in the Democratic primary) and Ted Cruz (in the Republican primary). More evidence that the rigging was done by US insiders, not foreign hackers.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Main - Serious discussion - Election fraud New reply

Page rendered in 0.029 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 27, rows: 230/230, time: 0.016 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.