Nasleep stropoppenverkiezingen #108 The Plot Against the President

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 april 2022 22:01 schreef Bocaj het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

The Plot Against the President - Trailer

The Plot Against the President (2020) - Reference View - IMDb

Eindelijk deze film-docu bekeken... Dit is nog lang niet klaar...

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 april 2022 19:37 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
[ twitter ][ twitter ]

Activistische journalisten van de WaPo, de kwaliteitskrant.

quote:

An account in search of a voice — and a big break from Joe Rogan

Chaya Raichik had been working as a real estate salesperson in Brooklyn when, in early November 2020, she created the account that would eventually become Libs of TikTok.

Under her first handle @shaya69830552, she minimized covid, cast doubt on the election results and promoted a dubious story about a child sex trafficking ring. On Nov. 23, 2020, Raichik changed handles, this time going by @shaya_ray and identifying herself publicly as a real estate investor in Brooklyn. She began doubling down on election fraud conspiracies using QAnon-related language. Early that December, she joked about launching a clothing line titled “voter fraud is real.”

In January 2021, Raichik started talking about traveling to D.C. to support Trump on Jan. 6 at the Stop the Steal rally. When violence broke out at the Capitol that day, she tweeted a play-by-play account claiming to be on the ground. “They were rubber bullets from law enforcement. 1 hit right next to me,” she said. She posted videos from the crowd and spoke of tear gas being deployed nearby. After saying she left the riot, she used Twitter to downplay the event, claiming that it was peaceful compared to a “BLM protest.”

Later that month, Raichik cycled through two more Twitter names, this time focusing on state politicians. First under the handle @ChayaRaichik and the display name “Chaya Raichik,” and then under the new handle, @cuomomustgo, she railed against New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), calling for him to resign. She promoted the efforts to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). She also began posting about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), calling him “actually brilliant.”

By early last March, she pivoted to a parody account titled @houseplantpotus, pretending to tweet as if she was a houseplant living with President Biden. She revamped her avatar to look like a small shrub with Biden’s face on the leaves. At that point in time she also claimed to be proudly Orthodox Jewish, live in Brooklyn and work in real estate in her Twitter bio.

But the house plant parody never took off. On April 19, 2021, she pivoted her account once again, this time to Libs of TikTok.

Just four months after getting started, Libs of TikTok got its big break: Joe Rogan started promoting the account to the millions of listeners of his hit podcast. He mentioned it several times on the show in August, then again in late September. “Libs of TikTok is one of the greatest f---ing accounts of all time,” he said. With his seal of approval, Raichik’s following skyrocketed.

Libs of TikTok gained more prominence throughout the end of last year, cementing its spot in the right-wing media outrage cycle. Its attacks on the LGBTQ+ community also escalated. By January, Raichik’s page was leaning hard into “groomer” discourse, calling for any teacher who comes out as gay to their students to be “fired on the spot.”

Her anti-trans tweets went especially viral. She called on her followers to contact schools that were allowing “boys in the girls bathrooms” and pushed the false conspiracy theory that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for children who identify as cats. She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are “abusive,” that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a “mental illness,” and referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+ community.

“Libs of TikTok is shaping our entire political conversation about the rights of LGBTQ people to participate in society,” Drennen said. “It feels like they’re single-handedly taking us back a decade in terms of the public discourse around LGBTQ rights. It’s been like nothing we’ve ever really seen.”

By March, Libs of TikTok was directly impacting legislation. DeSantis’s press secretary Christina Pushaw credited the account with “opening her eyes” and informing her views on the state’s restrictive legislation that bans discussion of sexuality or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, referred to by critics as the “don’t say gay” bill. She and Libs of TikTok have interacted with each other at least 138 times publicly, according to a report by Media Matters. When asked by The Post about her relationship with the account, Pushaw wrote, “I follow, like and retweet libsoftiktok. My interactions with that account are public," and added that she’s a strong supporter of its mission.

As the legislation progressed before eventually being signed into law on March 28, Libs of TikTok ramped up attacks, flooding its feed with accusations of “grooming.” The right-wing media and influential conservative figureheads used anti-LGBTQ content from Libs of TikTok as fuel for their arguments.

Fox News hosts Jesse Watters and Tucker Carlson began featuring content straight from Libs of TikTok on air, with Carlson urging his viewers to follow it “before it’s banned if you want to know what may be happening in your child’s school.” (Fox News did not respond to a request for comment.)

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 april 2022 23:16 schreef epicbeardman het volgende:
[ twitter ]
[ afbeelding ]

Niemand maar ook niemand wil die seniele gek zien. (behalve paar voor de gek gehouden babyboomers)
81 miljoen stemmen, eerder 81 stemmen

Bij Trump komen er nu nog miljoenen mensen naar zijn Rally's, en hij is niet eens President

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 april 2022 23:07 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]
Zal proberen het samen te vatten...

Trump had nooit mogen winnen, Hillary was de kandidaat...
Vooruitlopend op de 2016 verkiezingen werd Trump zwart gemaakt als de nieuwe Hitler, de racist en de fascist...
(Wat je hier in Nederland ook wel ziet om onwelgevallige mensen/politici in een negatieve hoek te zetten... of het nou waar is of niet...)
Trump werd toch President...

quote:

Holy shit... nu laten we de FBI onderzoek doen naar de vermeende Rusland inmenging. (Russiagate of Russiahoax)
En dan die gemene Adam Schiff, die steeds maar weer in de media zei dat hij verontrustende zaken gezien had maar dat hij niet meer kon zeggen omdat het 'classified' was... Dat bleef hij maar volhouden...
De media bleef dat ook maar steeds opvoeren...
Maar achteraf bleek het allemaal niet waar te zijn...

quote:

Belangrijkste open vraag: Wie heeft de FBI opdracht gegeven tot onderzoek naar de Rusland inmenging...
Er moet een intern onderzoek komen maar niemand doet of durft dat... en zo komt men overal mee weg!

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 april 2022 22:52 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Activistisch? En waarom meervoud? Het gaat om één journaliste Taylor Lorenz die (onder haar eigen naam) kwalitatief prima werk aflevert met haar onderzoek naar de misinformatie die anoniem verspreid wordt via social media door iemand die onder steeds nieuwe pseudoniemen post (waarom?) en nageblaat wordt door invloedrijke politici en opiniemakers zoals blijkbaar hier ook weer je raadt het niet.... ja ja je grote held Joe Rogan

Wie is hier nu de activist?

@:shaya69830552
@:shaya_ray
@:cuomomustgo
@:houseplantpotus

Uit het artikel:
[..]
Reactie op Raichik's tweet:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 01:00 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]
Het herposten van TikTok filmpjes kun je nauwelijks misinformatie noemen. Het is maar goed dat ze het doet, zo zijn we toch een hoop te weten gekomen over de walgelijke praktijken van een groepje docenten die les geven aan kleine kinderen.
Blijkbaar vind Lorenz dat ze een strijd moet leveren tegen de vrouw die herpost. Het zou juist veel interessanter zijn om die mafketels op te zoeken die kinderen graag willen indoctrineren in allerlei seksuele voorkeuren etc.
Maar goed ze krijgt nu de deksel op haar neus, dezelfde “journalistieke praktijken” worden nu op haar toegepast en blijkbaar vind ze het niet zo leuk. Wat natuurlijk weer een hoop zegt over haar tactieken.

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 01:15 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Het gaat niet om de filmpjes, maar om allerlei wilde conclusies die er vervolgens aan verbonden worden zoals het 'indoctrineren' van kinderen met walgelijke praktijken zoals ... tja wat precies eik en welk filmpje toont aan dat dat gemeengoed is in public schools?

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 01:24 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]
Waarom zou je geen conclusies mogen trekken als de personen in kwestie zeggen dat die zich daar mee bezig houden?
Je bent jezelf nu echt in heel vreemde bochten aan het wringen.

Niemand claimt overigens dat het gemeengoed is maar dat het gebeurt staat vast.

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 06:14 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:
Dat klinkt allemaal wel erg wanhopig.

Dan is de methodiek van Durham toch wel iets dat meer vertrouwen geeft. Maar dat is dan ook omdat Durham daadwerkelijk onderzoek doet in plaats van enkel de publieke opinie te beïnvloeden en de van haat afhankelijken op te ruien.

quote:

There was a mind-boggling number of things happening in late October 2016, so it's likely that many people missed a story that dropped on Halloween: an allegation that there was a digital backchannel between Donald Trump, Republican candidate for the presidency, and a Russian bank. The idea was that, for some undetermined reason, a server owned by the Trump Organization was communicating with a server at Alfa Bank. It was all wispy, from the implications to the evidence itself.

Which is probably one reason you didn't hear about it at the time. Within hours, experts on the sort of communication involved -- a common query meant to identify the Internet address of a Web domain -- offered that the communication was probably nothing more than an automated quirk. The Trump server wasn't even a Trump server but a marketing domain bearing the Trump brand but operated by a third party. The rational explanation wasn't that this was somehow a super devious effort by Trump's team to communicate with Russia (very stupidly using a Trump-branded domain) but, instead, a result of a much more anodyne sort of communication from Trump: an advertisement. The story quickly faded.

Over the next three years, Americans learned a lot more about how Russia actually was trying to influence the U.S. election in 2016 and the alarm experienced by federal law enforcement and counterintelligence officials at the number of people in Trump's orbit with demonstrable ties to Russian actors. In late July 2016, the feds had launched an investigation into George Papadopoulos, a campaign adviser who had been told earlier in the year that Russia had obtained a number of emails from Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton -- a possible reference to the actual hacking done by Russian agents of the Democratic National Committee and a Clinton staffer.

There were other links, including Trump's campaign manager. The investigation grew and, after President Donald Trump fired the head of the FBI, was handed off to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. You know the story. Unless, that is, your primary sources of news are right-leaning media outlets and Republican allies of Trump's.

Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump

On Monday evening, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) tweeted what might seem to an underinformed observer to be a remarkable new development in the history of the Russia investigation.

"The CIA knew as early as 2017 that the Trump/Russia collusion data was not 'technically plausible' and was 'user created,' " Jordan wrote. "In other words, it was made up. But Democrats and the media told you otherwise!"

The intent is clear. Jordan's assertion that "the ... collusion data" was "made up" is meant to suggest that the idea of collusion -- that Trump or elements of his campaign worked with Russian actors -- was simply a fiction created by the former president's adversaries. That the whole thing was a hoax, just as Trump had long insisted.

This is obviously not what happened.

Jordan's tweet was focused on a blog post from the pseudonymous author of the website TechnoFog. TechnoFog, in turn, was writing about a court filing that, they argued, pointed to some artificiality in data involved in the Russia investigation. Similar allegations were made by Fox News and then elevated by Fox's sister outlet, the New York Post.

The court filing came as part of a criminal indictment obtained by special counsel John Durham against an attorney who worked for a firm hired by Clinton's campaign. You're probably familiar with the Durham investigation. He was tapped by Trump's attorney general William P. Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation itself. In other words, Durham's job is to question whether the preceding probe into how and where Russia's efforts to get Trump elected might have been aided by Trump or his allies was itself warranted. It's a theoretically objective look for which Barr had an obviously subjective intent: proving that the Russia investigation writ large was an effort to attack Trump and little more. In recent weeks, Durham's thrust has become more clear. He apparently hopes to prove that Clinton's team intentionally deceived the government to impugn Trump with allegations of ties to Russia.

Last year, Durham obtained an indictment against a lawyer named Michael Sussman for allegedly having misled the government about his employment by Clinton's campaign when he came to them with evidence suggesting a link between Trump and Russia. As part of the legal wrangling over the indictment, Durham's team and Sussman's have exchanged allegations including ones centered on the genesis of that evidence. That's meant other previous bursts of purported exoneration for Trump, as when a Durham filing triggered claims (including from Trump) that the Trump White House had been hacked. It wasn't, as Durham sheepishly admitted.

All of which brings us to the TechnoFog allegation. That story picked out a paragraph from a document produced last week, in which Durham's team responded to filing from Sussman's lawyers. The government intended to prove, the filing read, that the claims Sussman brought to federal agencies about purported Trump-Russia links were understood not to be true by those agencies. What's more, one agency (presumably the CIA) had determined that data Sussman offered in defense of his claims "was not 'technically plausible,' did not 'withstand technical scrutiny,' 'contained gaps,' 'conflicted with [itself],' and was 'user created and not machine/tool generated' " -- although Durham's team had "not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard."

As you might have guessed, one of the claims Sussman had presented to federal investigators was the one about Alfa Bank. That wasn't the only one; there was also a claim about how data showed the use of unusual Russian phones in the proximity of Trump and the White House. But that one was never publicly reported, as far as I know, and had no apparent influence on either the public or private discussion of Trump's ties to Russia.

The claim from Jordan and Fox News hinges on the "user created and not machine/tool generated" component of the filing. You can easily leapfrog your way along the path they're taking from this was artificially generated to the whole thing is a hoax, but you can hopefully also see why that path heads into Lalaland.

For one thing, it's not clear what is being referred to. Let's assume it's the Alfa Bank data, which used domain-name records to show how the bank's server was trying to identify the Trump-branded one. What's "user created" on that? The presentation of what was allegedly nefarious? That's almost necessarily true, as I suggested on Nov. 1, 2016. Are they saying those lookups didn't happen? Or perhaps this about those phone data. Was there some human analysis of the data that introduced possible error? It's hard to say from this distance, but since the filing conflates the two, saying that the second government agency had drawn the above conclusions about "the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data," it may be the case that the "user generated" part refers solely to the phone claims -- and, therefore, to the story that was even less publicly influential than the Alfa Bank one.

That there are so many unknowns is entirely the point. Jordan et al. are far less interested in the claim than the rhetorical conclusion that can be extracted from this nebulous bit of hearsay. It's an unclear assertion made by a government agency reported without context by another party then contextualized by voices sympathetic to the Trump-Jordan view of things. It's hugely distant from any sort of proof -- and even if it were proved specifically that the Alfa Bank data was entirely fake (which no one is claiming at this point), it wouldn't matter anyway! The Russia probe was not centered in any real way on the Alfa Bank allegation in the first place.

But here's Jordan, declaring that "the data" were "made up" contra what "Democrats and the media told you," then dusting off his hands. It is to the Russia investigation what ivermectin is to the coronavirus pandemic: A thing that is being hailed for what it lets people think far more than what it actually does.

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 april 2022 23:16 schreef epicbeardman het volgende:
[ twitter ]
[ afbeelding ]

Niemand maar ook niemand wil die seniele gek zien. (behalve paar voor de gek gehouden babyboomers)
81 miljoen stemmen, eerder 81 stemmen

Bij Trump komen er nu nog miljoenen mensen naar zijn Rally's, en hij is niet eens President

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 01:32 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Omdat anekdotisch bewijs geen bewijs is. Eén zwaluw maakt nog geen zomer en zo ...

Ik heb geen idee over welke voorbeelden je het hebt waaruit je zo'n conclusie zou kunnen trekken? Sterker nog ik heb nog geen enkel voorbeeld voorbij zien komen waaruit je de conclusies zou kunnen trekken die Raichik anoniem zelf post (grooming, indoctrinatie, voter fraud etc.) en gretig aftrek vinden bij rechtse politici/ pundits en het goedgelovige volgvolk vervolgens dankbaar in ontvangst neemt. Waarom zijn die mensen in die voorbeelden trouwens niet vervolgd voor hun 'wandaden'? Daar heb ik ook nog steeds geen antwoord op net als op de vraag waarom DeSantis nooit een poging heeft gedaan om te overleggen met de Board of Supervisors van die public schools om dit 'onrecht' aan te pakken en DeSantis nog steeds geen voorbeelden geeft van de wiskundeboeken die afgekeurd zijn. Waarom zou dat zijn denk je?

Natuurlijk wordt er wel gedacht dat het gemeengoed is. Dat is toch hoe woke Links hun 'ideologie' pusht! Dat wordt hier keer op keer benadrukt is ook precies de strategie van de Republikeinen om conservatieve stemmen te winnen in de VS en dat richt zich vooral op de suburban moms (een groep waar ze bij de laatste verkiezingen flink aan stemmen verloren hebben) die erg gevoelig zijn voor dit soort 'parental rights' propaganda op grond van een niet bestaand/ gecreerd narratief met het gevolg dat het juist wél weer een groter probleem wordt voor de LGBTQ-gemeenschap maar daar hebben de Republikeinen natuurlijk totaal geen boodschap aan. Integendeel zelfs, dat is het Amerikaanse dogmatisch religieus conservatisme ten voeten uit.

En zeg nou zelf? Hoe winnnen ze anders meer stemmen dan bij de vorige verkiezingen? Een beleidsagenda hebben ze niet, dat heeft McConnell al vroeg aangegeven en dus wordt ervoor gekozen de Democraten zoveel mogelijk dwars te zitten met alle beschikbare middelen zoals overal tegen stemmen en natuurlijk Biden/ de Democraten overal de schuld van geven of het nou wel niet zo is of uberhaupt een bestaand probleem is. Dan verzinnen ze dat probleem wel, starten weer eens een Culture War en dat werkt als een tierelier heeft de ervaring geleerd in die kringen.

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 07:00 schreef theguyver het volgende:

[..]
Hup maar het is beetje standaard in de VS elkaar enorm op hitsen tegen elkaar beetje civil war stijl en zo zie je dat ook in de uitslagen platteland tegen de stad.
Modder gooien tot the max.

quote:

Op woensdag 20 april 2022 07:12 schreef Basp1 het volgende:

[..]
Sowieso erg bizar dat je in dat land gewoon zo makkelijk mensen zonder concrete bewijzen kan zwart maken zonder dat je aangeklaagd wordt. Als er een ander voorval is procederen ze in dat land elkaar kapot.