The pressure to 'break' a news story, must be tremendous for news organizations such as the Washington Post, NYTimes, and the rest. It is not surprising that fake news gets reported. I guess the important thing is that the news organizations recognize that they were wrong and retract such stories, unlike many politicians who 'double down' instead or recognizing falsity of their own statements.

I have no special liking for Bezos or his retail outlet Amazon, which recently screwed up my account. It involved my moving and then trying to order something from them, forgetting my password. I went to their site, indicated that I forgot my password and they were supposed to text email me a temporary password, but none came. I called and eventually got to a person who told my that I was locked out because my account had been hacked. I asked why I had no been let know that someone had compromised my information, and the guy said they sent multiple emails which never came to me because of course my information had been hacked. I hung up on him and now bad mouth them whenever possible. >:O

I agree there's pressure, but Bezos and others have agendas, so their mistakes also come from the propaganda they spread from their agendas. They published that Vermont story because they're personally invested in a Russia-hacked-the-election conspiracy theory that would hopefully exculpate and maybe even enthrone Hillary Clinton, whom they ardently backed while making 16 hit pieces on Bernie Sanders in a couple of days.

And yes, Amazon's service is dreadful...:)

P.S. WaPo still hasn't made a full retraction of their Vermont or Propornot "stories."

P.S. WaPo still hasn't made a full retraction of their Vermont or Propornot "stories." — Thanatos Sand

Are you referring to this Vermont story? There's an editor's note at the top: "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."

And this PropOrNot story? As the editor's note says, "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.". A newspaper isn't "fake news" if it simply reports someone else's lies (or mistakes). Else everybody that ever reports on Trump's campaign promises is fake news. Fake news is news that's invented by the reporter.

Thank you for proving my point. Editors notes are not full retractions and are rarely ever seen since they are placed after most people have and will read the articles.

And a newspaper is fake news when it creates its own mistakes as WaPo did with the ProporNot story or with the Vermont story when they did not come close to doing the due diligence because they've been in a frenzy to get Russia conspiracy theory stories out. That's fake news too.

WaPo also committed fake news throughout the 2016 election when they made continual hit pieces on Bernie Sanders, including a false claim that his followers threw chairs at the Nevada convention, to help their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. And we're not even going to mention when WaPo continually pushed the false story of WMDs and avidly supported the Iraq War for years.

I could say "fuck you" to the system, you could say "fuck you" to the system, many completely different types of people, with completely different characters, or personalities could say "fuck you" to the system. To vote for someone simply because that person says "fuck you" to the system is to completely neglect that person's character and personality in making your choice in who to vote for, and this is to shirk your democratic responsibility. It is to say "fuck you" to the system with actions.

So if we go beyond the act of saying "fuck you" to the system, to ask why does one say 'fuck you" to the system, we see that president Trump is completely phony. He said "fuck you" to the system simply because he wanted to get votes from people like you and me, who wanted to say "fuck you" to the system. Since his intent was to get himself elected president, this was the goal and motivation behind him saying "fuck you" to the system, he really holds "the system" in high esteem. He just said "fuck you" to the system to get himself into the system which he admired so much. Anyone who demonstrates such a strong desire to be president of the United States of America, going through all the effort required to get there, must actually have very high respect for "the system". So Donald Trump saying "fuck you" to the system was just an act of deception to get people who want to say "fuck you" to the system, to give him what he wanted most, to be the president of the United States of America. — Metaphysician Undercover

Holy crap I haven't been around for a bit and missed this. Seems I struck a nerve.

I'll play devil's advocate for a minute if you're still around and argue that this 'democratic' system has largely been appropriated by corporate interests aligned with both major parties, and centered around a combination of neoliberal economic policies with American military interventionism. This military-industrial complex, or whatever you want to call its current manifestation, is clearly not aligned with the will of a large segment of the US population.

So there's a massive disconnect that seems obvious now, and one that cannot be entirely reduced to the racism, sexism, etc. of Trump voters, even though these elements often do exist within that demographic. No, there are legitimate economic and social grievances that IMO we'd do well to take seriously.

If that wedge does exist between voters and political representatives, then 'shirking your democratic duty' could be interpreted as justified and possibly even efficacious to a certain extent, if its opposite involves giving your consent to the corrupt and violent system as it currently exists. Democrats sadly turned away from supporting unions and other working class struggles under the leadership of Bill Clinton. Bernie Sanders seems to have tried to bring the Dems back into their traditional role as the genuine representatives of working class interests, and had a good deal of success doing so,

I just mentioned that this could be a useful tactic to a certain degree, and by that I mean it would seem to make sense for the representatives of a system (used interchangeably with 'political establishment') shocked by the victory of a relative outsider, to make some much needed adjustments. Hopefully this temporary setback will lead to it being more attuned and responsive to the will of the multitude of voters who voiced their collective displeasure with a resounding 'FUCK YOU'.

I'm looking for for the silver lining to this travesty which is the Trump presidency. I'm also interested in larger cultural trends, specifically those which precipitated the creation of an electorate which has lost faith in a political process appropriated by financial interests, and IMO lacking much sense of a 'common good' which looks beyond the immediate enrichment of corporate interests who've appropriated the organs of state to do their bidding.

That's my (somewhat) quick and oversimplified take. We're all trying to make sense of the American political landscape right now, and I'm not sure anyone really knows what going on beyond the belief that we're in a stage of transition.

But yeah, I agree with yours and others' negative opinion of Trump. I'm dealing with very intelligent people here and I expect everyone to be able to make the important distinction between criticism of 'the system' and support of Trump. Let's not thoughtlessly conflate the two, as the supporters of 'the system' would like us to do, and which in turn discredits valid criticisms by associating these with the person of Donald Trump. It's a manipulative tactic, but one that seems to be working rather well thus far as evidenced by this thread.

Trump's contribution to the US is disenchantment. We've been headed toward some Orwellian dystopia for a long time. The first step of recovery is never comfortable.

Trump's contribution to the US is disenchantment. — Roke

Disenfranchisement, too.

when the world calls in the middle of the night with a crisis, is China going to answer? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's a very good question.

Archaeologists, geneticists, historic geographers all commune to try to understand what a few bones and stone tools mean. Whatever burning issues those ancient people worried over are lost in time as our worries will be also. There's a sort of sweet melancholy in that.. don't you think? — Mongrel

Now that you put it into that perspective I do find a sort of sweet melancholy in that idea.

The real USA is not superhuman. Agree? — Mongrel

Agree. The real USA is Wonder Woman! (Y)

That's a very good question. — Banno

One that maybe should have been asked and answered before telling the USA to take our marbles and go home?

Fool me once shame on you, the USA was making things worse so we came home.
Fool me twice, shame on the USA that gives it's best to the world both culturally and militarily, foolishly thinking that it is appreciated.

I hope China answers the call because it would be to consenting to being "the nation to hate" if the USA wound up responding.

Just wondering of you are aware of the Belt and Road Initiative?

Just wondering of you are aware of the Belt and Road Initiative? — Banno

I had not heard of it and it sounds wonderful and if comes to fruition. It appears they are indoctrinating their 'Next" generation as well.

I truly wish China luck in it's endeavor and that they will be able to lead the world through it's "NEXT" crisis because frankly I am tired of the USA being hated for the good we try to do. Like I said to Mongrel, the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and maybe the new Silk Road will be able to prove the quote wrong.

Agree. The real USA is Wonder Woman! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I need to find some of her in myself right now.

Me too.

Trump at least has some ability to know enough to be scared. In other words, regardless of whether or not he thinks he has much use for truth, he's certainly presupposing it in his recent explorations into his next possible moves...

X-)

Can I pardon myself?

The big question is what is he scared of. Few doubt that he has had sketchy dealings with Russia and probably many other countries. But if that's all there is, and all that happens is he pays millions in fines or is even impeached for those dealings, the hordes obsessed with the hope that Russia tampered with the election, and Trump facilitated that, are going to be extremely disappointed.

Me too. — Mongrel

I was surprised to read your response as you always seem unshakable to me. I am not sure where to find "it" though I am still looking, hopeful and not out but feeling the down part.

Do you mean about family health issues?

...from a leftist rag we should not be paying any attention too...

How Russia Played Trump.

[quote...from a leftist rag we should not be paying any attention too...

How Russia Played Trump. ][/quote]

Vanity Fair isnt' a leftist rag. It's a centrist rag that was firmly behind Hillary during the election and punched left by attacking Sanders.

Ah. Thanks for correcting me.

I wasn't trying to be corrective, just informative...:)

The hard split in ideology and politics between Centrists and progressives is a new phenomenon.

Do you mean about family health issues? — Mongrel

More along the lines of not taking shit from people in the name of self preservation. I know that I am the only one that can control how I react to things in life but that is a challenge right now.
Since I cannot form that waterproof type of feather that allow ducks to float, I shall instead pull in my oars for a bit and allow the stream to carry me merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, gently down.

That sounds like exactly what I should be doing.

I wasn't trying to be informative, just ironic. But the joke is lost in the explanation.

Actually, the article's characterisation of America as a naive child does not ring true. Ham-fisted and self-serving, yes; but that goes with the territory. TIff is right, the Pax Americana will be missed, at least in the West.

If you go with the flow, you will not find yourself up the creek.

I got you, but the problem with the article is we're not even sure how Putin has profited yet. There has been little revelation or exposure of any substantial quid pro quo. Also, we haven't had the Pax Americana almost this whole Millennium. Obama dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016, he and Hillary helped destabilize Libya, making it a training ground for ISIS, and they have backed Saudi Arabia's slaughter of the Yemeni for almost 2 years. And then there was Iraq and Afghanistan before that. Not much Pax.

we haven't had the Pax Americana almost this whole Millennium. — Thanatos Sand

No major city in Europe, America, China, Japan, SE Asia, and places in between has been carpet bombed since the middle of the last century.

That is a good thing.