PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[burn_this_city]

Stuffed with rice and deep fried

[photon]

Interesting, think this is accurate about Putin's long term goals?

Second, it’s all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives. This is the Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013. Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It’s a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.

Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not “propaganda” as we’ve come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as “active measures” and “reflexive control”. Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.

Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn’t a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it’s what the Kremlin calls a “multi-vector” foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate — ideally temporary and limited — centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an unstable new world order of “all against all.” The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in ‘solving’ crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ng-game-214589

[Drak]

[RougeUnderoos]

Here's an interesting article full of pretty maps from the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...e=sectionfront


It analyzes viewership of certain TV shows and who those viewers voted for in the election. No surprise -- viewers of the Daily Show were Hillary supporters, while fans of 16 and Pregnant supported the winner. That kind of thing.

This is odd, to me anyway:

“Family Guy” is an animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane that sends up American culture. Like many satirical comedies on our list, it is most popular in cities. The show’s popularity was more correlated with support for Hillary Clinton than any other show."

I get that it's a "city folk" show, but more than any other? Huh.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump having another psychosis/please love me Twitter meltdown today. If that piece of #### account is gonna waste everyone's time, hackers owe it to us to hack that account and at least post some "Wow my daughter is a piece of ass. Would definitely plow!" tweets for fun.

[Boxman]

Originally Posted by photon

Interesting, think this is accurate about Putin's long term goals?

Second, it’s all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives. This is the Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013. Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It’s a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.

Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not “propaganda” as we’ve come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as “active measures” and “reflexive control”. Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.

Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn’t a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it’s what the Kremlin calls a “multi-vector” foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate — ideally temporary and limited — centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an unstable new world order of “all against all.” The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in ‘solving’ crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ng-game-214589

No, I don't agree that these are Putin's long-term goals. That article reads like a propaganda piece - talking about a stable world order undergirded by the US is laughable at this point. The Americans have done more to sow disarray and civil war in the Middle East and Africa than any other power.

The article you are quoting is part of American political warfare against Americans.

Putin's goals are to secure a Deepwater port in the Mediterranean, to recapture the industrial areas of the Ukraine, and to control Syria and Iraq oil production.

[Boxman]

And please tell me what part anyone besides the members of NATO have had in in flaming migration crises in Europe?

[Boxman]

Hey, Politico magazine wants to complain about the Russians bombing ISIS. It's all part of an evil master plan to subvert the West right? The Cold War is back on? Forget the Chinese, the Russians are the real enemy?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Boxman

Hey, Politico magazine wants to complain about the Russians bombing ISIS. It's all part of an evil master plan to subvert the West right? The Cold War is back on? Forget the Chinese, the Russians are the real enemy?

I feel like you didn't read that particular article.

No, they did not complain about the Russians bombing ISIS.

Also, no, the article is specifically about how the Russian plan is not to subvert the West.

At this point, I guess I should also note that China was not mentioned.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Here's an interesting article full of pretty maps from the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...e=sectionfront


It analyzes viewership of certain TV shows and who those viewers voted for in the election. No surprise -- viewers of the Daily Show were Hillary supporters, while fans of 16 and Pregnant supported the winner. That kind of thing.

This is odd, to me anyway:

“Family Guy” is an animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane that sends up American culture. Like many satirical comedies on our list, it is most popular in cities. The show’s popularity was more correlated with support for Hillary Clinton than any other show."

I get that it's a "city folk" show, but more than any other? Huh.

Ya but it's from the new york times. Anything they write will be biased towards demcratic views.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Ya but it's from the new york times. Anything they write will be biased towards demcratic views.

Hmm. Okay, well, it's an analysis of viewership of certain shows in certain places, and how they correlate with voting patterns. Kind of hard to put a Democratic spin on that unless they simply made the numbers up. Which maybe you think they did.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Here's an interesting article full of pretty maps from the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...e=sectionfront


It analyzes viewership of certain TV shows and who those viewers voted for in the election. No surprise -- viewers of the Daily Show were Hillary supporters, while fans of 16 and Pregnant supported the winner. That kind of thing.

This is odd, to me anyway:

“Family Guy” is an animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane that sends up American culture. Like many satirical comedies on our list, it is most popular in cities. The show’s popularity was more correlated with support for Hillary Clinton than any other show."

I get that it's a "city folk" show, but more than any other? Huh.

Interesting to see the split on reality vs fictional shows. Urban areas have So You Think You Can Dance? and that's it (I wouldn't classify Mythbusters as 'reality' TV).

Rural areas are 10/22 reality TV, and that doesn't include AFV and Wipeout.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Hmm. Okay, well, it's an analysis of viewership of certain shows in certain places, and how they correlate with voting patterns. Kind of hard to put a Democratic spin on that unless they simply made the numbers up. Which maybe you think they did.

reality has a well established liberal bias.

[photon]

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Ya but it's from the new york times. Anything they write will be biased towards demcratic views.

Saying most viewers of Family Guy are democrats is the least charitable characterisation of democrats I've heard since the election.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Ya but it's from the new york times. Anything they write will be biased towards demcratic views.

Facts. They have a bias?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

House Republicans, defying their top leaders, voted Monday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office set up in 2008 in the aftermath of corruption scandals that sent three members of Congress to jail.

The move to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics was not public until late Monday, when Representative Robert Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that the House Republican Conference had approved the change with no advance public notice or debate.

In its place, a new Office of Congressional Complaint Review would be set up within the House Ethics Committee, which before the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics had been accused of ignoring credible allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority leader, opposed the measure, aides said Monday night. The full House is scheduled to vote Tuesday on the rules, which will last for two years, until the next congressional elections.

The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, with emboldened Republicans ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The move by Republicans would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

[wittynickname]

I'm sure this is fine.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a349e...ethics-office#

House Republicans on Monday voted to eviscerate the Office of Congressional Ethics, the independent body created in 2008 to investigate allegations of misconduct by lawmakers after several bribery and corruption scandals sent members to prison.

The ethics change, which prompted an outcry from Democrats and government watchdog groups, is part of a rules package that the full House will vote on Tuesday. The package also includes a means for Republican leaders to punish lawmakers if there is a repeat of the Democratic sit-in last summer over gun control.

Under the ethics change pushed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the non-partisan Office of Congressional Ethics would fall under the control of the House Ethics Committee, which is run by lawmakers. It would be known as the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, and the rule change would require that "any matter that may involve a violation of criminal law must be referred to the Committee on Ethics for potential referral to law enforcement agencies after an affirmative vote by the members," according to Goodlatte's office.

Lawmakers would have the final say under the change.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch!

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is a pretty good test of the post-truth world. Joe Scarborough claims he was never at Trump's New Year's Party. Here the pics confirming he was. So will he be held to the fire here, or allowed to have his bull#### slide?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

This is a reminder to the Dems that if they can get their #### in order, they can easily take back the House in 2018. GOP is going to hand them so much ammunition the next two years. Will they be able to do anything about it will be the question.