@Dean's banner p




7 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 03:59:39 UTC


User ID: 430



7 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 03:59:39 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 430

The whole bury it on Friday thing is old-fashioned in our era of 24 hour news

The era of 24 hour news is precisely why the US political ecosystems continues to relies on the Friday news dump to bury bad news: because most people go home for the weekend, and by the time they come back the news cycle has passed on with at least 2x morning-news cycles having passed, minimizing the political impact. Not only the information proliferation muted due to fewer people tuning into it on the weekends, but the coverage is decreased as it's more 24-hour cycles out of date from being breaking.

Choosing to do it Sunday afternoon is the opposite, in that it makes it the primary topic of discussion for Monday morning news, which increases the political impact for shaping perceptions. It's an indicator that the people arranging for the timing didn't see it as bad news.

There are some strong palace coup vibes here, in the sense that the decision of how to release the information wasn't Biden's, but on the part of whomever needed it released ASAP. If you want to put bad news, that'd typically be a Friday afternoon, not Sunday afternoon, and if you want a normal controlled release, you do it via press release on Monday business hours. Sunday afternoon is for if you want it done, and have a first-mover advantage when others are taken by surprise and not in work yet.

A more conspiratorial take might be that the release of the concession preceeded the actual capitulation- that Biden could have been shown the tweet and been forced into a position in which he'd have to reveal he lacked control of his own White House / social media platform if he wanted to compete against it, which would be further political kryptonite.

More likely, this is something more akin to the pro-Harris faction in the White House just marching it over to the Twitter-handler desk, which they could have access/control to, and releasing it as soon as Biden capitulated, but before any other planned event. This would allow the Harris-faction to steal that march on immediate coordinations to pressure others not to capitulate / not announce contestation this coming week.

(Harris has the lock on the Biden-raised money, reportedly, but several of the reported key players behind Biden dropping out are- allegedly- less committed to his replacement being her. Thus, the Harris-faction needs to work fast with the advantage of being the first aware of the concession.)

Not really. Your conception of how much it takes to launch drones like the Houthis is probably way, way, way more than is actually required.

Drones may fly, but they require nothing even within the same magnitude of care or capital and infrastructure as, say, your average commercial airport. When your requirements are that small-scale and ubiquitous- a 'maintenance facility' for a cheapo drone can be as minimal as a tarp on sticks- well, those tents in the desert are your hangers, maintenance facilities, and fueling depots. And well, precision munitions are expensive, and tarps and basic building materials are really, really cheap.

And that's just the monetary cost.

Bomb who, the goat herders? Goat herders are already Stone Age tech levels.

Iran, in turn, is a power who is at nuclear breakout capacity, which is to say that by the time they could be bombed back to the stone age, doing so would not only be extremely expensive on multiple fronts- more expensive than the impact to the Suez Canal- but by the time it could be accomplished, the Mullahs would almost certain bite the bullet and produce nuclear weapons for use.

More to the point- since when did it take a major power to block Suez transit?

The technology that the Houthis are using to disrupt shipping is not particularly advanced. Military drones are not the sole domain of great powers, and haven't been for nearly a decade. The technology is ubiquitous, and well within the capacity of small states, especially when backed/supplied by other states.

At this point this is just circular reporting of the Axios reporting, trying to present pressure as already successful without actually citing new developments.

Here's a link to Halperin's PBS Frontline interview. It's relying on anonymous 'Democrat sources', for which there are counter-soruces 'close to President Biden' rejecting the validity of.

Mark Halperin is a Newsmax reporter, and Newsmax's party line is part of the same 'Biden will resign, Democrat sources say' push that the Axios article above is. If you compare the Axios article and the Newsmax article, you'll see they are following the same themes and narrative beats, but also with the same end-point caveats.

This is not a coincidence- this is a coordinated end-of-week media push, of which Halperin is a part of, to build a consensus going into the weekend that Biden has already agreed to resign, during a period of his personal weakness/absence/inability to counter-narrative due to COVID.

Reports are coming out that Biden will step down from the race this weekend.

ETA Here is a link https://www.axios.com/2024/07/18/president-biden-drop-out-election-democrats

Your own linked article doesn't say what you claim it says.

The very first paragraph of the Axios article is-

Several top Democrats privately tell us the rising pressure of party congressional leaders and close friends will persuade President Biden to decide to drop out of the presidential race, as soon as this weekend.

On its very own grounds, the framing of 'will persuade' (future action) indicates that President Biden has not already been persuaded, or else it would have been presented in past tense (has persuaded) to indicate success. Further, this action is to be taken by the Party congressional leaders and close friends (to persuade Biden). Biden is not the subject acting in this sentence, Biden is the object being acted upon.

Further, the grammatical structure of the claim is deliberately ambiguous in what, specifically, is supposed to occur by this weekend: you perceived it that Biden will drop out by the weekend, but the post-comma clause also refers to the persuaders, as in 'congressional leaders and close friends will persuade Biden as soon as this weekend.'

Which- from external context- we know they have to, because Biden has been pursuing and pushing forward a virtual roll call to affirm the nomination, which is supposed to kick off... Monday. Which is to say, if he didn't resign this weekend, it would be too late to convince him to drop out before he locked in the nomination. Hence this week's media reporting on the virtual roll call, and the internal party rebellion.

This puts the time suspense less in the 'he's agreed and waiting to announce it!' space, and more in the 'this is a last-minute effort we hope will succeed' space.

Which is why the article later acknowledges-

Reality check: Biden can't be forced out. He has the delegates. No one can physically pry them away. He needs to do it by choice and on his terms.

Which is to say- we're in the same position as before the article. Biden has to choose to not be the candidate, and there is no claim he's been convinced.

What there is a claim of if the attempts to try to do so-

A panic pressure campaign is pounding Biden. It has been relentless — and coordinated.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Biden in Rehoboth Beach, Del., on Saturday — the day of the assassination attempt on Trump — that it would be best if he dropped out, ABC News first reported. Dems on Capitol Hill want him out, and worry they'll lose winnable seats if not.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a mastermind of the campaign to get Biden out, told him that he could destroy Democrats' chances of taking back the House. We're told she's also worried about donations drying up.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) delivered a similar, if more subtle, message to Biden.

Former President Obama has spoken loudly with his silence — and his former aides trashing Biden in public.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing what Obama's doing. So are their former aides.

We increasingly hear top Biden aides, including ones who initially urged him to fight on after his disastrous debate on June 27 — 21 days ago — are saying it's now when, not if, Biden announces he's not running.

-but, again, we go back to the point that no one is claiming Biden has been convinced to not run.

Note, further, the absence of references to key counter-actors who would have to be overcome to convince Biden. There is no mention of Hunter or Jill Biden- who have been shaping access to Biden, and have been key advocates influential to him. There's no indication of change in, or pressure by, the Black Caucus leaders who are his key pillar of support. There isn't even a claim that Obama or the Clintons have asked him to- rather, their non-position is taken as a position by inference, which is assuming a conclusion of what their silence means (such as, for example, helping Biden by not joining in / bolstering the anti-Biden crowd).

In summary, this is a pressure piece trying to shape Biden's decision on whether to withdraw, not a claim that he has decided to withdraw. The only claim on his withdrawal made is that of the belief that the pressure efforts will work by this weekend- a confident claim, but you'd expect confidence from a pressure-piece.

You still don't seem to have read the rest of the other posts either, so your projection is understandable.

This is also itself a reflection / downstream of how the primary Democratic Party machines are based on relatively centralized City Machines, which tend to dominate state politics, but also themselves the have (relatively) clear power differentials. The NYC political node and the California nodes, by virtue of their monetary influence for the rest of the power, have a degree of leverage over the lower party organs via patronage networks that the Republican Party lacks due to the decentralization.

Yes, the White House will determine who gets to runs the algorithm. The American Executive Branch agencies and regulators will be the ones to determine who is a suitable western acquirer for the American wing of TikTok, a process which will give various approval, veto, and other shaping opportunities on various security and/or anti-monopoly basis.

Didn't read the rest of your post since it started off on such an ignorant and/or dishonest foot.

You didn't seem to read the rest of the other posts either, so your projection is understandable.

By giving it to the partisan opponent*, who has a much more relevant and contemporary history of abusing the algorithm for partisan gains in the American political context.

*Of Donald Trump, whose non-support for the Biden Administration on this matter was the starting point for this thread tangent, and whose non-support is the subject to be contested / discredited.

And thus we return to the first response to Ashlael, which you have not disputed and seem intent on not acknowledging:

Donald Trump has just spent the better part of the last decade under unmitigated information warfare by the controlled or aligned media channels of the Democratic Party. Why would he want to support a Democratic administration assert control/coercion over another social media platform?

Which brings to question the validity of appeals to commonality and common interest.

In the context of this, there is no 'our' being discussed here, because the 'our' is one in which the critical portion that needs to be enabled / supported is hostile to the other part of the 'our' in the same general fashion as it claims as justification for the collective effort.

Which concludes with the ending of the previous post to you-

For a commonality argument to hold over something like 'Trust me to take over your media alternative, bro,' there needs to be a degree of social trust to give that, and social agreement of what the nature of the problem is being addressed to warrant extending that trust to resolve. None of the key proponents have it, and not understanding that- or why social trust is necessary- is precisely why the argument resorts to 'because Chinese!', and why it fails to move the domestic opposition skeptics.

The anointment argument is not that Biden was anointed by voters on November 8th, but in the Democratic Party inner-party coordination during the Democratic primary before Super Tuesday when the Party establishment successfully coordinated the majority of Biden's centrist rivals whom he been stuck amongst to drop out and endorse him. This was done in a context where this needed to happen to consolidate the centrist share of the party vote, who no one had been dominated to that point, vis-a-vis the insurgent Bernie Sanders, who up to that point had been on a Trump-esque trajectory of being one of the biggest minorities.

Between the coordinated pullout and endorsements of Biden, and the tactical stay-in by party institutionalist Elizabeth Warren that split the party left/Bernie-base vote, Biden was basically uncontested by any significant rival (except Michael Bloomberg) to the right of Bernie/Warren going into Super Tuesday, which inevitably produced an overwhelming victory on his behalf, as opposed to the forecasted muddle if the earlier-primary patterns had held. This provided the contested primary that Mozer was referring to that Biden won, as the counter-argument to @Mewis's critique of the Democratic Party relying on designated successors instead of (intra-)party democracy.

Mozer's argument was that Biden won a contested primary, and thus there was no anointing, and uses the endorsements during the contested phase as proof of this position. This relies on the assumption that an anointment must happen before the primaries, with any contested phase disproving there being an anointment.

This is an invalid assumption. There is no requirement for when an anointment/successor designation has to occur. It doesn't even counter what a successor / anointment can be considered to be.

The anointed successor argument is that the party coordination to clear the decks is the anointment, to the benefit of the designated successor. It's the institutional-driven, rather than voter-driven, pressures to determine a primary winner. Biden did not win Super Tuesday, and then other dropped out as is/was the normal causal relationship in primaries with a healthy intra-party democracy- rather, others dropped out, so that Biden could win Super Tuesday.

You not knowing what to make of the point is rather demonstrating why the point applies.

Not talking about China is not changing the subject, it is the point that that China is not actually the subject, but the red herring justification for a party of an established pattern (the partisan-media complex) and an old problem (decrying the effect of media on kids as a justification for controlling media). It is noting that the historical context around the decision is not Chinese changes, but US domestic politics changes, and that the proposed solution (expropriating PRC influence) doesn't imply the implied result (better Social Media quality), particularly in light on the research that exists around the nominal problem (the nature of the effect of media on kids).

A social media algorithm can provide good content or bad, but 'Good but Chinese' is not bad simply because Chinese any more than 'American social media' is automatically 'good' for the nation's youth. TikTok may very well be 'Bad and Chinese', but 'Bad but American' is also still bad, and not automatically preferable for a number of reasons, including the long-established skepticism for granting the government or political parties greater control of the media-economic sphere.

Given that the Biden administration made no compelling argument that swapping 'Chinese' for 'American' would make it 'better' quality in and of itself, and also that the Democratic Party-media complex has a contemporary history of pursuing and asserting standards that are partisan rather than 'American' in nature, up to and including algorithm manipulation...

Well, 'we need the algorithm in the hands of people we can trust' is not a meaningful argument when the people making it are also the people who would be in a position to determine whose hands it ends up in are also not trusted to abuse it themselves. 'Bad but Chinese' may be bad, but 'Bad but my partisan opposition' is not intrinsically better.

For a commonality argument to hold over something like 'Trust me to take over your media alternative, bro,' there needs to be a degree of social trust to give that, and social agreement of what the nature of the problem is being addressed to warrant extending that trust to resolve. None of the key proponents have it, and not understanding that- or why social trust is necessary- is precisely why the argument resorts to 'because Chinese!', and why it fails to move the domestic opposition skeptics.

That the association of their friend and political-peer groups matter far more, and that this is a context where the social media content is downstream, not upstream, of political culture.

Also, that this specific example is a demonstration as to why the foreign affiliation (or lack thereof) is a red herring, and even counter's the original point. TikTok and geopolitical competitor social media are not the sources of trans culture. Social media is a magnifier of access to / awareness of / participation in age-cohort culture, not because of ownership but because of what the internet fundamentally enables via facilitating interactions.

And then banning the chief enforcer of Don't Eat Ham Sandwiches from attesting that what was being presented as a ham sandwich was actually a ham taco, and would not be considered a ham sandwich by the Ministry of Don't Eat Ham Sandwiches.

The problem with TikTok isn't that it's foreign-owned trashy media. The issue is that people enjoy trashy media, especially children, and that good parenting is hard. Trashy media, however, doesn't monkey-see/monkey-do indoctrinate children.

Social media has been trash for decades, well before TikTok became a thing. The power of media influence on children is also wildly inflated, to a degree that I expect a great deal more justification than sloganeering, particularly one when one of the first political tenets of American culture is 'you don't get to tell me what I can or cannot read.' I've lived through 'video game makes kids violent' fearmongering, 'religious media makes kids bigots' fearmongering, 'a lack of religious media makes kids immoral' fearmongering, 'problematic themes makes kids into fascists' fearmongering, and who knows how many alternative variations.

I have yet, however, to see any of these voluntary media consumption theories actually pan out in any empirical fashion into any sort of causal relationship. Kids are frequently stupid, and stupid kids will do stupid things in relation to whatever media they have access to. That does not, however, mean that the media is the cause of their stupidity. The sort of idiot child who tries to live-reenact American pro-wrestling isn't going to be a distinguished engineer if his social media feed / TV station shows more engineering-is-cool clips, but he is just as likely to be a Naruto-running fool with his friends.

It's a good thing that is not my stance, then.

And I remember Trump being criticized for his effort then by various parties. What changed wasn't the wisdom of the policy- it was who was in the US government, and when they decided to make an issue of it.

And why should he?

In many respects, the TikTok ban seems less like 'tough on China' and more like the Democratic Party trying to assert control of yet another media company, after having spent decades with a partisan-media company alliance that has been used to the detriment of their political opponents.

There's plenty to dislike about social media like Tiktok, but the part that the Democrats were reacting to wasn't actual propaganda-techniques like inflaming election season via hyperbolic claims about political opponents. That was and is just standard Democratic party electioneering. Nor is it about personal data security- that's both old news and not unique. From a more skeptical perspective, the biggest distinguishing factor about TikTok- aside from the anti-PRC electoral hay- was that it was uncontrolled.

Donald Trump has just spent the better part of the last decade under unmitigated information warfare by the controlled or aligned media channels of the Democratic Party. Why would he want to support a Democratic administration assert control/coercion over another social media platform?

The parties can bring witnesses to testify about the facts of the case but they can't bring witnesses to make arguments to the jury about what the law is.

This is a distinction without a difference when the facts of the case hinge on what the law is in actual application, which thus shapes the facts of what intent should be on the part of the accused, which the witness forbidden to testify was the best able to speak to.

Or, alternatively, it's re-affirming the original argument by not letting the counter-argument smuggle in assumptions (such as that a party-annointing must occur in advance of primaries) that are neither necessary nor disprove the previous argument.

Fundamentally, Biden won because none of the wonkier centrist candidates could win the support of the black political machines who deliver a plurality of the Dem primary vote, so the other centrists (by the time the voting started, that meant Buttigieg and Klobuchar) had to drop out and endorse Biden if they wanted to crush the Sanders/Warren wing. This was obvious to anyone who understands Democratic party politics after the South Carolina primary.

And this was the moment of anointing. Biden did not enter the primaries anointed- Biden was anointed into the primaries by how the inner-party party reacted in the face of an emergent threat to their control of the party as a whole, rather than allow an outsider wing raise as a result of voter preference in the primaries.

The Iraq civil war was nothing if not political violence, including electoral violence.

What reality do you think the modern-day usage of 'Nazi' describes, beyond 'person I want you to be hostile to or hate'?

The historical Nazi referred to a specific brand of genocidal nihilistic cult of personality which pursued wars of conquest. That is not the reality being referred to by contemporary usages.

...I assume you weren't including the more than a million American military service members who deployed in Iraq, right?