djsunyc wrote:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

delusional pathological liar.

what
a
loser

2+ mil fraud votes? lol.

congrats white folks - this is who represents you.

Trump represents all Americans who voted for and against him as he is elected president.
Obama is black but he represents white people also regardless of they like him or not.
In society based on democratic principals normal people are accepting the results of election process and move on.
Is America became suddenly an enemy country for you because of some questionable dude was elected?

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS, this is what you said a page ago:

Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

So there are a number of assertions on your part, introduced by a question that seemed rhetorical, since your following statements assume that this is true.

"[T]he House passed a no-fly zone" — they didn't, they passed the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2016" with this goal:

It is the policy of the United States that all diplomatic and coercive economic means should be utilized to compel the government of Bashir al-Assad to immediately halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people and actively work towards transition to a democratic government in Syria, existing in peace and security with its neighbors.

"Of course MSM is not talking about this" — do they normally talk about bills that have passed the House yet have to still go through the Senate? The only news I can find via Google that references this bill are an article from The Nation and some American Jewish publications. Incidentally, The Nation as a consistent "dove" voice from the left shares your fears:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-dangerous-and-shortsighted-push-to-contain-iran/
The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone over Syria. It requires the administration to “submit to the appropriate congressional committee” a report that “assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria.”

If this bill passes both houses, it will need to be signed by the sitting President. Perhaps they are trying to sneak it in the lame duck so Obama signs it but Trump has to implement it. I don't know and I won't speculate further. It was first proposed in July when it wasn't clear who would be the 45th president anyway. Turkey our NATO ally last week asked the US to reconsider implementing a no-fly zone. But the Act is in part a request for information and recommendation from the Executive on the effectiveness of a Syrian no-fly zone, not immediate implementation.

In a post on this page, you wrote:

I hope it is false but all that I can gather shows is is true and was passed.
Why wouldn't MSM not cover this (if true)

So here you express some doubts, but don't offer your sources for us to vet. Well, luckily your hopes turn out to be true (in that all you gathered was false). So this wasn't some MSM blackout, it's just not very notable at the stage of the bill for them. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. But now you can contact Senators or join efforts to stop passage in the Senate.

So I wonder what the headlines and text of the articles you were referring to said exactly? Was your assumption the House passed a Syrian no-fly based on misleading reporting on their part or bad reading on yours?

Doc, I was asking a question. Sometimes with just text a question can be taken at face value, rhetorically, etc. You can read into it as much as you want, but I had no bad intentions. I hoped it to be false. Since it was all alt news that I found, I wouldn'T post it, and came here to see if anyone knew more. (At the time I didn't know it was a Bill.)

Go on Google, do a search for this ("no fly zone passed") and you will see basically what I saw, none of it being MSM.

But as I said to Martin, this is just weird. Really, this is how they start wars. They've already had a General tell them we can't control the air space without going to war with Russia. This isn't rocket science. It is obvious to anyone. But here we are taking apart my post and missing the point. Do we really need a study to verify this? LOL, think about that.

So will you admit that your alt-news sources lead you astray in this case?
Would you care to share some of these sources so I can see if the error was on their part or yours?

I will admit that MSM is totally one sided and biased to the point that it often amounts to lying and that has driven away much of their viewership/readership. When Trump called them out it wasn't out of the blue. It was pretty clear to most people. And their disastrous revenue, conflict of interests (owned by a few large corporations), etc. is a sign of that.
This has driven many people to alt news. Some of the alt news is valid, some of it BS and a lot in between. Same stuff goes on on both alt and MSM it seems.

What I found was not good enough (in my mind) to post, but there were many articles on it, so I asked here to see if anyone heard anything. It was just via a google search I gave you the search terms to.

All news should be looked at with the same critical eye, MSM or not. That is not the question here as I was asking a question, albeit I obviously wasn't clear enough.

OK, if you say so.

As for answering your question: you're welcome.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/803071609330397184

Marc E. Elias ‏@marceelias 1h1 hour ago
We are getting attacked for participating in a recount that we didn't ask for by the man who won election but thinks there was massive fraud

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

Ah, I see you're back to being passive aggressive. You know fine well what you posted was not a genuine question, why waste time pretending you were?

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

All politicians lie. In a democracy, they usually tell lies to achieve a particular result: Maybe they want to conceal information that would damage their reputations, or take credit for something they had nothing to do with. Sometimes a falsehood can obstruct a piece of undesirable legislation, or facilitate the passage of a desirable one. But in each of these cases, a lie tends to be little more than a momentary deviation from the truth. It’s a brief sojourn outside the borders of our stable, shared reality.

Some political lies are more ambitious than that. Sometimes the goal isn’t to embroider reality as it currently exists, but to construct a new reality out of whole cloth.

That’s what the second Bush administration tried to do. President George W. Bush and his advisers — most notably deputy chief of staff Karl Rove —wove a parallel universe in which Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda was in cahoots with virtually all of America’s enemies, and the United States was a messianic crusader that would eventually spread capitalist liberal democracy to every corner of the world. This apocalyptic vision had little in common with the actually existing global order, but it was a compelling story.

Creating an alternate political universe requires discipline. It requires the willingness to tell many little lies that add up to one big lie. All these lies need to be internally consistent, mutually reinforcing, and at least superficially plausible. Think of it like writing fantasy fiction; the spell woven by books like The Lord of the Rings only works if the worlds they depict obey a coherent inner logic.

For members of the Bush administration, even their power to mold reality had a place in the universe they created. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality,” an anonymous Bush official, widely believed to be Rove, told the New York Times’ Ron Suskind in 2004. “And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

President-elect Donald Trump does not create new realities. He tells lies that are seemingly random, frequently inconsistent, and often plainly ridiculous.

He says or tweets things on the record and then denies having ever said them. He contradicts documented fact and then disregards anyone who points out the inaccuracies. He even lies when he has no discernible reason to do so — and then turns around and tells another lie that flies in the face of the previous one.

If Bush and Rove constructed a fantasy world with a clear internal logic, Trump has built something more like an endless bad dream. In his political universe, facts are unstable and ephemeral; events follow one after the other with no clear causal linkage; and danger is everywhere, although its source seems to change at random. Whereas President Bush offered America the illusion of morality clarity, President-elect Trump offers an ever-shifting phantasmagoria of sense impressions and unreliable information, barely held together by a fog of anxiety and bewilderment. Think Kafka more than Lord of the Rings.

It is tempting to suppose Trump built this phantasmagoria by accident — that it is the byproduct of an erratic, undisciplined, borderline pathological approach to dishonesty. But the president-elect should not be underestimated. His victories in both the Republican primary and the general election were stunning upsets, and he is now set to alter the course of world history. If he does not fully understand what he is doing, his advisers certainly do.

Steve Bannon, former head of the white nationalist outlet Breitbart News, is Trump’s Karl Rove. He knows. In a recent interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Bannon suggested that the key elements in his strategy are dissimulation and “darkness.”

“Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power,” he said. “It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.”

That’s how Bannon ran the Trump campaign, and it appears to be how he’s running the transition team. Since the election, Trump has baited the press with a flurry of potential cabinet picks, instigated a bizarre fight with the cast of a Broadway musical, and concealed his true policy priorities behind a thicket of conflicting reports.

It’s working. The media’s coverage of the Trump transition is blurry and confused. Stories that should be real scandals — such as Trump’s apparent efforts to manipulate international diplomacy for personal financial gain — get lost in the shuffle.

Non-linear warfare

Bannon is a skilled practitioner of the “darkness” strategy, but he is not its inventor. The real Master of the Dark Arts is another Karl Rove equivalent: Vladislav Surkov, a top adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Surkov, the documentary journalist Adam Curtis said in a 2014 film, is “a hero of our time.” He went on to describe the Surkovian method:
His aim is to undermine peoples’ perceptions of the world, so they never know what is really happening.

Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.

But the key thing was, that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake. As one journalist put it: “It is a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused.”

A ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it is undefinable. It is exactly what Surkov is alleged to have done in the Ukraine this year. In typical fashion, as the war began, Surkov published a short story about something he called non-linear war. A war where you never know what the enemy are really up to, or even who they are. The underlying aim, Surkov says, is not to win the war, but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception, in order to manage and control.

Bannon and Trump deployed that strategy with aplomb throughout the primary. Because of the constant media focus on his campaign, Trump was able to bombard the airwaves with an unending stream of surreal falsehoods. At the same time, Bannon turned Breitbart News into a Trump Party organ and used it to disseminate further confusion. Independent of Trump and Bannon, a number of other fake news sites — an improbable number of which happened to be headquartered in Macedonia — inundated social media with inaccurate information. There is some evidence to suggest that Surkov’s employer contributed to the process as well, using the website Wikileaks as a conduit.

Many of the stories promulgated by Trump, Bannon, and their allies — such as Trump’s claim that Sen. Ted Cruz’s father was somehow involved in the Kennedy assassination — were obviously false and easily debunked. But the sheer volume of these stories had their intended effect. When fake news becomes omnipresent, all news becomes suspect. Everything starts to look like a lie.

The relentless downpour of inaccurate or useless information can make people lose trust in even their own minds. It happened to Washington Post reporter Ben Terris during the election.

In March, Terris reported that he had seen Corey Lewandowski, then Trump’s campaign manager, physically attack journalist Michelle Fields. The campaign lied about the incident and said nothing had happened. After days of being told his report had been wrong, Terris began to doubt what he had seen. Even when video was uncovered corroborating Terris’ report, the Trump campaign evaded the issue.

“Trump gaslighted me,” Fields later told Terris for an article about the incident. “I worry now that he’s gaslighting the country.”

In a world where nothing is true, the only real choice available to voters is between competing fictions. Trump offered a particularly compelling set of fictions, but he also found various ways to telegraph that he knew what he was doing. Through irony, evasion, self-contradiction, and obviously ridiculous claims, he let his supporters in on the joke. If everything is a lie, then the man who makes his lies obvious is practicing a peculiar form of honesty.

The president-elect is speaking the language of dictators.

It makes sense that the man who would pioneer this style of rhetoric in an American context is someone who used to host a reality television show and appear in pro wrestling events. Both The Apprentice and the World Wrestling Federation are staged; they’re contests that are meant to look superficially real, even though everyone knows that the outcomes are rigged and the “heroes” and “villains” are reading canned lines. The thing that makes these spectacles so entertaining is that they don’t try to hide their artifice. Everyone knows pro wrestling and reality television are “fake,” and laughing at how fake they are is part of the fun. The savvy viewer gets rewarded for seeing through the veneer. But that same viewer keeps tuning in, and may even become emotionally invested in the game.

For Trump, politics is a reality show. That’s why, as tech billionaire and prominent Trump supporter Peter Thiel argued during the campaign, many of the president-elect’s most devoted followers refuse to take his statements literally.

“One thing that should be distinguished here, is the media is always taking Trump literally,” said Thiel during an October appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. “It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take him seriously but not literally.”

It is tempting to take solace in the belief that, if Trump cannot be taken literally, his extreme rhetoric might conceal a secret moderate streak. But that hope would be misplaced. Non-linear warfare is intrinsically authoritarian. The president-elect is speaking the language of dictators.

Managed democracy

Consensus is the bedrock of democracy. For differences to get resolved in a properly democratic fashion, there needs to be agreement over the terms of the debate. Interlocutors must be aware of their shared rights and responsibilities, and they need to be capable of proceeding from a common set of facts and premises.

American democracy has always been deeply flawed, but political actors used to at least agree on a set of shared premises and ground rules. President Barack Obama bemoaned the erosion of this consensus in a New Yorker article published shortly after Trump’s election.

“Ideally, in a democracy, everybody would agree that climate change is the consequence of man-made behavior, because that’s what ninety-nine per cent of scientists tell us,” Obama told New Yorker editor David Remnick. “And then we would have a debate about how to fix it. That’s how, in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, you had Republicans supporting the Clean Air Act and you had a market-based fix for acid rain rather than a command-and-control approach. So you’d argue about means, but there was a baseline of facts that we could all work off of. And now we just don’t have that.”

When political actors can’t agree on basic facts and procedures, compromise and rule-bound argumentation are basically impossible; politics reverts back to its natural state as a raw power struggle in which the weak are dominated by the strong.

That’s where Donald Trump’s lies are taking us. By attacking the very notion of shared reality, the president-elect is making normal democratic politics impossible. When the truth is little more than an arbitrary personal decision, there is no common ground to be reached and no incentive to look for it.

To men like Surkov, that is exactly as it should be. Government policy should not be set through democratic oversight; instead, the government should “manage” democracy, ensuring that people can express themselves without having any influence over the machinations of the state. According to a 2011 openDemocracy article by Richard Sakwa, a professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent, Surkov is “considered the main architect of what is colloquially known as ‘managed democracy,’ the administrative management of party and electoral politics.”

“Surkov’s philosophy is that there is no real freedom in the world, and that all democracies are managed democracies, so the key to success is to influence people, to give them the illusion that they are free, whereas in fact they are managed,” writes Sakwa. “In his view, the only freedom is ‘artistic freedom.’”

This “artistic expression” can be nominally political, insofar as it takes on the guise of political rhetoric. But it is also fundamentally anti-political, both because its primary aim is self-expression, and because it has little effect on political power itself. It is essentially a form of narcissism. And it is harmless to authoritarian despots.

How to fight a shadow

If the United States is to remain a liberal democracy, then Trump’s non-linear warfare needs to fail. Politics needs to once again become grounded in some kind of stable, shared reality. It’s not clear how that could happen. But there are at least a couple of steps that anti-authoritarians can make right away to ensure that the Surkov style of rhetoric does not go unchallenged.

First, social media companies need to be held accountable for facilitating the spread of misinformation. Men like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, through their greed and stupidity, have shepherded authoritarianism to power in the United States. By embracing a facile definition of “openness,” they’ve sought to reap the traffic benefits of right-wing propaganda while ignoring its disastrous social consequences. They’ve since taken some small steps to rectify their errors, but for now, at least, it’s too little too late.

Second, journalists need to understand what Trump is doing and refuse to play by his rules. He is going to use the respect and deference typically accorded to the presidency as an instrument for spreading more lies. Reporters must refuse to treat him like a normal president and refuse to bestow any unearned legitimacy on his administration. They must also give up their posture of high-minded objectivity — and, along with it, any hope of privileged access to the Trump White House. The incoming president has made clear that he expects unquestioning obedience from the press, and will regard anyone who doesn’t give it to him as an enemy. That is the choice every news outlet faces for the next four years: Subservience and complicity, or open hostility. There is no middle ground.

The same goes for every other organization, both public and private, whose job it is to safeguard political liberalism. For the next four years, Donald Trump will seek to shred any institution that threatens his ability to unilaterally determine what is real. That will likely include the courts, universities, unions, and even executive branch agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If he fails, then the United States may yet keep its republic. But if he succeeds, then the very notion of political reality will have been reduced to little more than a bad joke. The logic of democratic discourse will have been wholly replaced with the surreal anti-logic of nightmares.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..