Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

“In politics stupidity is not a handicap.” We know this now! Trump thread cont.

973 replies

TheClaws · 19/03/2018 06:34

This is a quote of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon has a number of quotes when Read through the lens of Trump are eerily prescient. Napoleon wasn’t of the same political bent as Trump necessarily, and he was certainly more cerebral, but the lust for power is the same.

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3191613-Even-if-you-subpoena-us-we-wont-turn-up-on-the-Trump-threads

OP posts:
Thread gallery
52
OuaisMaisBon · 28/03/2018 14:32

Full thread from Flavia Dzodan - Writer; feminist; Latina; sudaca; immigrant; I don't rant, I write manifestos. www.patreon.com/flaviadzodan
‏Verified account @redlightvoices

Good morning everyone and welcome to another instance of the political game known as “look at what you made me do!” only with data and algorithms instead of scheming Russians with the power to make random people racist by bot.
Now, I have said this before in regards to “blaming the Russians” for Trump, Farage, Brexit, Le Pen etc: no amount of foreign intervention makes people white supremacist bigots. The best they can do is exploit an existing belief system.
The same thing can be said about the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook data exploits and I am kinda perplexed how this whole thing is currently portrayed in European (and more specifically British) media in regards to Brexit meddling.

A woman politician was murdered by a white supremacist on the eve of the Brexit vote and that didn’t happen because an algorithm sent subliminal instructions to the murderer. It happened because the foundations of Empire have always been misogynist and racist violence. (My bold)

‏We are vulnerable to propaganda (every one of us is) but ultimately propaganda can only go so far if you are not already predisposed to the ideology they are selling or you somewhat “buy” the notion that you’ll benefit from what they are selling.
I spent a good chunk of my life in dictatorships and dictatorship adjacent regimes (the ones of 80s Latin America) and ppl didn’t just “believe” unless they were already comfortable with authoritarianism or they felt they had something to gain from it.
Now, rather than examine why Cambridge Analytica made such poignant use of intimate data (ie to exploit the intimate details of the racist belief system that informs our dominant culture across Europe and North America), we hear how they “made people do things”
Nah... you told the algorithm that you liked racist things and the algorithm “learned” how to show you what you like. we (collective, culture wide “we”) trained the algorithm through our own preferences, likes and dislikes. It didn’t become a sentient thing voting on our behalf
I teach a course called "The coloniality of the algorithm" that traces the history of the belief system we actually program into the machines, the taxonomies and epistemes that actually make our technology. They are not sentient beings that make us do things.
and the ideologues using the data are not cartoon villains from an authoritarian regime. they are the "captains of industry" (to use an outdated definition) that make the cover of Wired for "disrupting" this or that. They are your white cisgender cousin with "an idea"
it's important to me to stress the fact that there is profit to be made from exploiting this belief system in every step of the way: from creating the platforms that spread this ideology, selling the data to political operatives to eventually get someone elected
BUT it's equally important to be reminded that these people make $$ and eventually get to power because there is a culture willing to buy what they are selling. Your "cousin with an idea" is merely exploiting an already existing feature in the system
and if it isn't clear from everything I've written throughout the years: it is important to dismantle these micro structures of power along the way but unless we examine and dismantle the macro structures in place, a new Cambridge Analytica will take the spot of the old one
5 replies 17 retweets 58 likes

End of conversation
PerkingFaintly · 28/03/2018 15:19

it is important to dismantle these micro structures of power along the way but unless we examine and dismantle the macro structures in place, a new Cambridge Analytica will take the spot of the old one

This.

cozietoesie · 28/03/2018 15:43

So that you can see Mr Colbert's 'mime rodeo'. Grin

lionheart · 28/03/2018 16:07

Yes, and the willingness to buy is often predicated on a refusal to believe anything (facts, evidence) that runs counter to what is being sold.

lionheart · 28/03/2018 16:12

www.politico.com/story/2018/03/28/trump-mueller-russia-probe-488695

'When President Donald Trump lashed out against Robert Mueller by name earlier this month, the president’s supporters sprang into action — treating the chief Russia investigator to political campaign-style opposition research.'

cozietoesie · 28/03/2018 17:08

They got the Sierra Club involved? Shock

lionheart · 28/03/2018 18:23

This way of doing things is really very strange.

www.apnews.com/5fd1c351f1a642c88996b457f81cf6dc/State-GOP,-business-lobby-dump-money-in-Supreme-Court-race

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 18:36

Michael S. Schmidt
@nytmike
EXCLUSIVE: Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, discussed pardons for Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn with their lawyers last summer as Mueller was building cases against them. w/@MarkMazzettiNYT @Jo_Becker @maggieNYT @adamgoldmanNYT

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 18:38

The link would help!

mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/us/politics/trump-pardon-michael-flynn-paul-manafort-john-dowd.html

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 18:40

The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency. Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 18:50

Norm Eisen
@NormEisen
BREAKING: Maryland federal court has granted standing to MD and DC to proceed with #emoluments case as to Trump International Hotel in DC. We @CREWcrew are honored to serve as cocounsel with @BrianFrosh @AGKarlRacine. More to follow!

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 19:00

The Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower Had A Company That Met With Trump’s Campaign Manager
"We have developed a series of algorithms that can predict the personality traits of individual voters by analyzing their voterfile, social, online and consumer data.”

www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/cambridge-analytica-chris-wylie-eunoia-trump-campaign

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 19:06

Revealed: Cambridge Analytica data on thousands of Facebook users still not deleted

Facebook said it took steps to ensure harvested campaign data had been “destroyed”. But Channel 4 News has now discovered that data on thousands of people in Colorado is still circulating – and Channel 4 News has been to speak to those whose privacy was breached.

www.channel4.com/news/revealed-cambridge-analytica-data-on-thousands-of-facebook-users-still-not-deleted

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 19:13

Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
THREAD: What does today's report that Trump's lawyers discussed pardoning Manafort and Flynn mean for Mueller's investigation?
1/ The @nytimes just reported that Trump's former lawyer John Dowd approached lawyers for Manafort and Flynn and suggested that Trump would pardon them.
2/ Suggesting to Manafort and Flynn that they would get a pardon could be a way to discourage them from cooperating against Trump. A pardon would greatly reduce their incentive to cooperate.
3/ As @nytimes notes, Dowd has said privately that he doesn't understand why Flynn pleaded guilty. I wondered the same thing, because if @Comey is to be believed, Trump went to great lengths to protect Flynn. Presumably Flynn could expect a pardon, but he flipped anyway.
4/ Three potential explanations come to mind. First, perhaps the plea deal was so good that it was worth taking over an uncertain pardon. Second, Flynn was concerned about a state prosecution, which Trump couldn't pardon. Third, Flynn was concerned about his son's liability.
5/ This news does help explain why Manafort has not pleaded guilty despite facing overwhelming charges and a long prison sentence. I have long suspected that Manafort expected a pardon because his team's hyper-aggressive attacks on Mueller only make sense if that was the case.
6/ The main question raised by the piece is whether Dowd's comments to attorneys for Flynn and Manafort result in increased liability for Trump. The short answer is that they only create problems for Trump if Trump himself considered pardoning Flynn and Manafort.
7/ I understand what you're thinking--of course he did! But this article is an example of why people in Trump's position should only communicate through their attorneys. Dowd can't reveal whether Trump discussed pardons with him, and Trump can decline to reveal what he told Dowd.
8/ Trump could also take the Fifth if he's asked whether he considered pardoning them, given that it's possible that his motives for pardoning them could give rise to criminal liability.
9/ That doesn't end the discussion because Trump does not appear to be careful about what he reveals to others about his thoughts and intentions. Trump may have discussed with otherspeople who are not his personal, outside lawyershis intent to pardon Flynn and Manafort.
10/ Mueller could interview those people about what Trump told them. If Trump wanted to pardon Flynn and Manafort in order to undermine the Mueller investigation, it could potentially create liability for him but it would be an unprecedented and novel case.
11/ That's because the Constitution gives the President broad power to pardon, and pardons by their nature undercut the criminal justice process. No one knows for sure how courts would decide whether pardons could be an act of obstructing justice. It's never happened before.
12/ In any event, the quotes by Sekulow and Cobb in the @nytimes piece are meant to suggest that they are not aware of Trump ever discussing pardoning Flynn and Manafort. If Trump did discuss pardons with anyone but Dowd, we can expect to read about it in the months ahead. /end

lionheart · 28/03/2018 19:25

We are going to need a new Fred soon.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 19:31

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Devin Nunes’ Democratic opponent, local prosecutor Andrew Janz, has raised more than $1 million in the first quarter of 2018, apparently raking in more money than any Democratic House candidate in the country except for Conor Lamb.

amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/28/politics/nunes-opponent-fundraising-first-quarter/index.html

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 28/03/2018 19:39

Robert Costa
@costareports
Former Speaker Gingrich was at the White House on Tuesday for meetings with Bolton, McMaster and other officials

Swipe left for the next trending thread