U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[vicsinad]

so the idea of a mandate for either candidate is a gross distortion.

That's absolutely correct.

[Amphipolis]

When these 12-year-olds have little to no understanding about the politics of the wall and are just repeating it because their parents don't like Mexicans. I grew up in Michigan. I know the kind of environment that those suburban kids grow up in. As a kid, our neighborhood freaked out when a black family moved in. Mexicans are commonly called spics to their face. And Trump's campaign has begun to legitimize this.

By the way, millions of people have come through Canada illegally. For example, the Albanian and Italian mafias smuggle in drugs and humans (including unwilling prostitutes) from Canada into the northern states. When has there been a call for the wall on Canada? If we want to secure our borders from actual threats instead of from people who are looking for jobs that pay minimum wage that entitled Americans don't want to do, then also secure our easily penetrable northern borders. If a terrorist is going to come into America, it ain't through Mexico. It's through a Canada or an extended visa stay.

This is not normality. Illegal immigrants from the Mexico crossing will dig more tunnels, buy more ladders, cross more rivers, and come through the ocean. There is work in the United States that Americans won't do and for which businesses won't pay decent wages. Illegal immigration will only stop when work isn't available.

I had two great-grandfathers come to the US. They came on a frickin' boat across the Atlantic, were checked for diseases, and were let in the country to find work. No prior process. What is considered legal vs. illegal immigration changes with the tides. An immigrant is an immigrant, and if there's incentive to come, they'll come.

1. I’m not American, I live in Greece and I’m following these events from distance but I think Trump has made many statements showing respect for Mexican people or Mexican immigrants (I mean the legal ones).

2. I guess the problem with illegal immigration from Canada is much smaller.

3. Yes, it is normality. You imply that the wall will not work and Mexican illegal immigrants will keep on flowing. If so, why do you worry so much? And why does everybody worry so much? I don’t remember any policy (Republican or Democratic) suggesting giving (let’s say) 1 or 3 million green cards per year to Mexico. Maybe they don’t want USA to be Mexicanised. I don’t hear anyone suggesting changing the laws or the Constitution. What you’re all implying is “Let’s keep the law, but not apply it, let’s pretend we don’t see a problem, let’s tolerate illegality”. There’s a similar mentality in Greece and I think I have a problem with it, I don’t find it very normal or honest.

4. What you describe IS a process of the time and seems like legal immigration, not illegal one. Of course there’s a huge difference between the two.



====

[vicsinad]

1. I’m not American, I live in Greece and I’m following these events from distance but I think Trump has made many statements showing respect for Mexican people or Mexican immigrants (I mean the legal ones).

2. I guess the problem with illegal immigration from Canada is much smaller.

3. Yes, it is normality. You imply that the wall will not work and Mexican illegal immigrants will keep on flowing. If so, why do you worry so much? And why does everybody worry so much? I don’t remember any policy (Republican or Democratic) suggesting giving (let’s say) 1 or 3 million green cards per year to Mexico. Maybe they don’t want USA to be Mexicanised. I don’t hear anyone suggesting changing the laws or the Constitution. What you’re all implying is “Let’s keep the law, but not apply it, let’s pretend we don’t see a problem, let’s tolerate illegality”. There’s a similar mentality in Greece and I think I have a problem with it, I don’t find it very normal or honest.

4. What you describe IS a process of the time and seems like legal immigration, not illegal one. Of course there’s a huge difference between the two.



====

1. He has said both respectful and disrespectful things. Saying something respectful about a group of people doesn't cancel out the disrespectful things you have said. For example, he said Mexico the country is not a friend of the US. If he says, "oh, just kidding, you are a friend?" you think the people are just going to be fine with it? He has also said respectful things about women. It doesn't mean many women will get over all the disrespectful things he said and done to women.

2. The problem with illegal immigration from Canada is both smaller AND, just as importantly, that they're, for the most part, European whites coming from there.

3. I worry because of a) the message it sends to potential immigrants; and b) the divide it is and will cause in our nation. Unlike many Balkan countries, we are a nation built on immigration. The things you don't hear about illegal immigration arguments must mean because the headlines you read, or programs you watch, don't mention changes to the laws. Further, that part of USA was "Mexicanized" with Spanish and native Americans well before the US entered that territory and forced many millions out. We're not just a "white European" country no matter how much the nationalists and bigots want it to be. And yes...many are saying "don't enforce the law while it's the law" because they don't agree with the law. Just like the laws on marijuana. The executive branch has that ability and it's not necessarily unconstitutional if it does not enforce the law.

4. And I'm saying what is defined as legal and illegal immigration is constantly changing based on who we want to come and who we want to keep out. Which is not the values America stands for...as written on our statue of liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

When Balkan people came first in masses to the United States in late 1800s and early 1900s, the regular Americans wanted us out, calling us dirty, disease ridden, backwards, dumb, etc. Before us, when the Italians, Irish and Jews came, it was the same sentiment. It's racism and discrimination that's driving this anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican "illegal immigration drive." That's why we see many Mexicans and Central Americans getting harassed who are here legally and who have been born here -- because it's not as much about immigrants taking our jobs as it is about the changing color of our country.

The idea that the poor, weak and uneducated can or are able to go through the "legal" bureaucratic process of obtaining visas is an absurd notion. Instead, we have turned into a stuck up, arrogant and entitled society giving first priority to foreign students whose parents have tons of money and to exceptional professionals, who have already made it successful in their fields in their homelands. We're choosing those who have over those who have not. That's not what this country stands for.

And this is all ignoring the way Americans came and conquered this land in the first place.

[Philosopher]

A high school student I knew and taught when she was younger recently emailed me to ask my view of the election result. She noted that her class had been paying close attention to the vote and that everyone was shocked and depressed by the result. She wondered why Trump is so popular, asked if I was happy with the result, and asked whether the December 19 vote of the Electoral College could possibly change the outcome.

In a follow-up email, she noted that the Republicans dominate both the House and the Senate and that Trump could end up appointing a few Supreme Court justices. Then she asked:

“Aren’t the three branches supposed to check each other so nobody would have too much power? It’s a bit scary to think they’re all on the same side.”

Here are the replies I sent her:

***

I actually think Trump was the lesser of the two evils. He’s an ignorant bigot, but Clinton is a war criminal with blood on her hands who is responsible for literally destroying nations (including Iraq, Libya, and Syria). So I’m very happy that Clinton is not president. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy that Trump is. I didn’t vote for either of them. I didn’t vote at all, actually. The way I see it is this: Why would I want to legitimize my own disenfranchisement? Why would I want to legitimize the corrupt system that produces these kinds of candidates? I think Americans needs to stop participating in this insanity every four years because it only perpetuates the criminal operation people call a “government”.

The Electoral College system is confusing, but was designed to make sure the people of each state were represented (rather than just counting the total number of votes of all voters in the USA as a whole). Here’s a pretty good article explaining how it works: http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm.

Technically, the electors could put Clinton into the White House instead of Trump. But that isn’t likely to happen.

***

I’m a bit indifferent to whichever party holds power. I hate them both pretty equally, though for different reasons. You’re right, of course, but the three branches don’t really check each other. People have a view of Republicans and Democrats as virtual opposites. This is reflected in the language of “left” vs. “right”. But the truth is if you look at the policies across administrations, fundamentally, both parties are the same. The differences are marginal if you look at the big picture. This is most obvious with foreign policy. But even with domestic policies, like health care, there are certain assumptions both parties accept.

For example, both parties accept that the federal government has authority to force individuals to buy goods or services in the marketplace against their will (i.e., Obamacare’s mandate to buy insurance). This is a tyrannical power. Where is that authority granted to Congress in the Constitution? You can look for it, but you’ll never find it. The Supreme Court says it’s there. And we’re supposed to just accept that as fact. We’re not supposed to think for ourselves. Well, the Supreme Court says so, so it must be true! That’s what we’re supposed to believe. But read the Constitution for yourself and tell me if you can find where this power is granted to the Congress!

In fact, direct taxes on individuals (like the Obamacare penalty for not buying insurance) are explicitly prohibited in the Constitution. So the Supreme Court says it’s an indirect tax. That’s like saying up is down. The way the government uses words to justify its own usurpation of power makes the words totally meaningless. Ever read George Orwell’s book 1984? Read it! It’s like that. (War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.) Or like Alice in Wonderland.

In fact, the Founding Fathers never even dreamed of taxing people for notpurchasing a good or a service in the market. How could they possibly have granted such authority to the Congress when it was entirely beyond their imagination that a government would claim to have such power? It’s complete nonsense.

In reality, the three branches often conspire against the public to usurp ever more power that infringes on our liberty and violates our rights. Sure, there are disputes between the two parties, but these are like two heads of the same beast fighting over a carcass the two-headed beast has just hunted down and killed. The Obamacare law was modeled largely on a law passed in Massachusetts under a Republican governor (Mitt Romney), for example. Sure, the Republicans say they oppose Obamacare. But their arguments are superficial and don’t go to the fundamental level. Sticking with the example, Republicans don’t dispute that the government has authority to force you to buy something even if you don’t want it.

The Supreme Court itself noted that this means if the government wants to fight rising health care costs, it could tax people for not buying enough vegetables. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it could tax people for buying cars below a certain fuel efficiency standard (even if the reason they bought the car was because they couldn’t afford one with higher gas mileage). These two assume that, however tyrannical their abuse of power, government officials at least have good intentions. But what if they don’t have good intentions at all? Use your imagination to come up with other examples of how the government could use this extraordinary power.

And the sleepwalking Americans don’t even question it. They just accept it because, hey, the Supreme Court said so! Even people who are capable of thinking for themselves choose not to.

And that’s why we have a situation like we’ve seen where it came down to a choice between Trump or Clinton. It’s insane. That’s not a choice. My choice was to just not participate at all. My message to Washington was: I am not going to legitimize your corrupt and illegitimate system or your criminal operations.

Actually, I think the government not being able to accomplish anything for the next four years is the best case scenario. Not getting anything done at all is better than getting a lot of evil deeds done, as is usually the case, regardless of which party is in the White House.

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2016/11/15/election-two-headed-beast-devours/

[Philosopher]

1. He has said both respectful and disrespectful things. Saying something respectful about a group of people doesn't cancel out the disrespectful things you have said. For example, he said Mexico the country is not a friend of the US. If he says, "oh, just kidding, you are a friend?" you think the people are just going to be fine with it? He has also said respectful things about women. It doesn't mean many women will get over all the disrespectful things he said and done to women.

2. The problem with illegal immigration from Canada is both smaller AND, just as importantly, that they're, for the most part, European whites coming from there.

3. I worry because of a) the message it sends to potential immigrants; and b) the divide it is and will cause in our nation. Unlike many Balkan countries, we are a nation built on immigration. The things you don't hear about illegal immigration arguments must mean because the headlines you read, or programs you watch, don't mention changes to the laws. Further, that part of USA was "Mexicanized" with Spanish and native Americans well before the US entered that territory and forced many millions out. We're not just a "white European" country no matter how much the nationalists and bigots want it to be. And yes...many are saying "don't enforce the law while it's the law" because they don't agree with the law. Just like the laws on marijuana. The executive branch has that ability and it's not necessarily unconstitutional if it does not enforce the law.

4. And I'm saying what is defined as legal and illegal immigration is constantly changing based on who we want to come and who we want to keep out. Which is not the values America stands for...as written on our statue of liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

When Balkan people came first in masses to the United States in late 1800s and early 1900s, the regular Americans wanted us out, calling us dirty, disease ridden, backwards, dumb, etc. Before us, when the Italians, Irish and Jews came, it was the same sentiment. It's racism and discrimination that's driving this anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican "illegal immigration drive." That's why we see many Mexicans and Central Americans getting harassed who are here legally and who have been born here -- because it's not as much about immigrants taking our jobs as it is about the changing color of our country.

The idea that the poor, weak and uneducated can or are able to go through the "legal" bureaucratic process of obtaining visas is an absurd notion. Instead, we have turned into a stuck up, arrogant and entitled society giving first priority to foreign students whose parents have tons of money and to exceptional professionals, who have already made it successful in their fields in their homelands. We're choosing those who have over those who have not. That's not what this country stands for.

And this is all ignoring the way Americans came and conquered this land in the first place.

Vic, are you for open borders in the US and everywhere in the world? Are you for amnesty in the US and elsewhere?

[vicsinad]

I believe, at least, that people from other countries should be able to move as freely into or out of the US as people from the US can move freely into and out of other countries. Closing and tightening of borders tends to cause more harm than good for most people. Borders separate people. Many Macedonian families were separated from their kindred in Bulgaria and Greece, and same with Albanians in Albania, Macedonia, and Greece, and same with Serbs and Croats in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. Having borders has been the cause of wars over borders. I tend to line myself up with Goce Delchev, Krste Misirkov, Jane Sandanski and Gjorche Petrov with the ideas of open borders.

Amnesty for what? For violent criminality or for migrating outside of the established legal process in a country?

[Philosopher]

Amnesty for what? For violent criminality or for migrating outside of the established legal process in a country?

The question was in the context of illegal immigrants. Should undocumented persons receive amnesty? Do you believe all undocumented persons should receive amnesty, regardless of whether they have criminal records? Note: I am only asking about amnesty in the context of being an illegal, not amnesty for other crimes of the state.

What are your thoughts on travel documents like passports? Should people be free to travel or migrate without them?

[vicsinad]

The question was in the context of illegal immigrants. Should undocumented persons receive amnesty? Do you believe all undocumented persons should receive amnesty, regardless of whether they have criminal records? Note: I am only asking about amnesty in the context of being an illegal, not amnesty for other crimes of the state.

What are your thoughts on travel documents like passports? Should people be free to travel or migrate without them?

My answer is "yes" to all your "yes or no" questions.

[vicsinad]

Here is another article on this.

Kids in Macedonia made up and circulated many false news stories in the US election

“The pope endorses Donald Trump,” roared the headline.

Only he didn’t.

It’s just not true.

But that didn’t stop the story from getting thousands upon thousands of "likes," shares and other forms of engagement via social media.

And for the guys creating these lies, that means revenue. Cold hard cash. From the gullibility of the American voter.

That’s the finding of an investigation by BuzzFeed News.

Voters in this election cycle were deliberately and cynically played by teenagers in a small town in Macedonia called Veles, home to at least 100 fake news sites dedicated to US politics. Most of them were pro-Trump.

“There’s a fairly large group of young people in Macedonia, who, for a long time [have] been running dubious, on-the-edges websites about different topics, whether it’s health or other things,” says Craig Silverman, who co-reported the story for BuzzFeed News.

Yes, health. You know, those sketchy health advice pages.

They seek out clickbait, or come up with their own, to simply get clicks. Every click generates a tiny amount of advertising revenue — a fraction of a penny. But it can add up to a good living for creative kids in a poor town, in a poor country, like the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Their biggest hit was a story with a false quote from Hillary Clinton, saying a few years ago that Donald Trump should run for president. “She never said that,” says Silverman, “[but] it’s gotten over 480,000 shares, reactions and comments on Facebook.”

That’s better than most scoops from leading news outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

And that level of engagement can provide the story’s generators with a few thousand dollars a day. Typically, though, these teens get just a few thousand dollars a month, according to Silverman.

Now that the election is over, it’s not clear if the kids will continue to riff on US politics. There had been diminishing returns for late entrants to the market, in any case. It’s likely they’ll go back to their regular bread and butter: bogus health advice sites.

Google and Facebook have responded to the BuzzFeed News investigation by announcing measures to counter the onslaught of bogus clickbait stories, by preventing the sites from using their advertising networks. “Google announcing that it will start removing fake news sites from its AdSense program is a big thing,” Silverman says, “because that economic motivator is a big thing whether you’re in Macedonia or the United States.”

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-16/kids-macedonia-made-and-circulated-many-false-news-stories-us-election

[vicsinad]

Stephen Colbert has a funny short segment called "Hey Macedonian Teens" on exactly this issue. It starts at about 6:30 and goes until about 7:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FEoUaArljw&feature=youtu.be

[Vangelovski]

Don't get excited. Most of the pro-Macedonian Trump news was a teenage scam from Veles.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-surge-of-pro-trump-fake-news-is-coming-from-macedonia/8003094

'Wikileaks just killed Hillary' ... 'Hillary indictment imminent' ... 'Obama caught on live TV telling illegal aliens it's OK to vote. Promises the law will not come after you!' ... 'Hillary Clinton In 2013: "I Would Like To See People Like Donald Trump Run For Office; They're Honest And Can't Be Bought"'.

These are headlines from the few hundred fake news websites that have sprung up around the US election. The sites with names like WorldPoliticus.com, TrumpVision365.com, USConservativeToday.com, DonaldTrumpNews.co, and USADailyPolitics.com make money through sharing in Facebook ad revenue. Business is booming, and the centre of the fake news clickbait industry is the small town of Veles in Macedonia, apparently known for its porcelain. Here, young Macedonians reportedly earn thousands of dollars creating articles that are eagerly consumed by Trump supporters in America.

Hillary Clinton never said Donald Trump should run for office, but a story claiming she did exactly that (see headline above) has racked up hundreds of thousands of shares, reactions and comments. Other fake news articles have done almost as well, and together they have reached millions of people.

The stories tend to be either straight up fakes or are merely heavily biased - designed to confirm the prejudices and stir the passions of their readers. There's an irony here. This election, we've heard a lot about the influence of Russia, about Putin 'hacking' the election and backing Trump, and of the sway of right-wing news channels like Fox. But the entrepreneurs in Veles are not about ideology or power games; their motivation is very American; it's pure capitalism.

Why Veles?

Before this election, people in Veles were already making money through making Facebook content that would be be popular with Americans. Under the Facebook business model, publishers get a tiny proportion of the tiny amount of money that an advertiser pays for each click. Advertisers pay more per click in America than they do in Europe, because the average revenue per user is much higher (about $12.43 per user to $3.98).

Mostly this content was to do with sports and health - these were the topics that did well on Facebook. Then Trump came along and folks in Veles learned nothing did better than sensationalist pro-Trump news. In April, the site meta.mk reported at least six pro-Trump fake news sites in Veles; a few months later the Guardian reported 150. Meta.mk quoted a 22-year-old computer science student:

"I thought, what would interest Americans the most, and it was either this or rugby (American Football), some of the news I write, and other parts I take from other web-sites, I then translate them. I really don't know if what I translate from other web-sites is true or not, I am only doing this because of the Google Ads"

Why Trump?

BuzzFeed reported that Veles has experimented with left-leaning content, but it didn't do as well. Nothing sells Facebook clicks like the Donald. This may be partly because of the air of conspiracy that has marked this election; the general distrust of mainstream news sources and the 'media elites', and the sheer passion of the Trump supporters. It has meant Trump supporters are more likely to share news from unknown news websites, and because so much is being written about Trump all the time, the Veles news sites can simply copy the original content and repost it under a click-friendly headline. They never run out of news, and it costs almost nothing to publish. The article about Clinton wanting Trump to run for office was lifted from an 'independent' website that admits it publishes fake news:

"This is HYBRID site of news and satire. Part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true!"

What about after the election?

Earlier this year, it emerged Facebook's 'trending' news module showing popular news for users was being curated and tweaked by human beings. To protect itself from accusations of (left-wing) bias, Facebook sacked the curators and installed an algorithm, which then began promoting fake news articles (plus an article about a man masturbating with a chicken sandwich). The episode shows the fake news problem is bigger than Trump; there are billions of Facebook users, and billions of links posted to the site every day. Incorrect news can travel swiftly across networks. The algorithms are unable to detect the fakes, but human moderators are open to accusations of bias (not to mention the cost).

At the same time, there's an incentive to publish sensational or fake news in order to cash in on more pay-per-click ad revenue. Accuracy moderation would arguably make Facebook less engaging (read: less bias-confirming), and this would hurt the company's bottom line.

The fake news sites are able to absorb the attacks of mainstream media. Like an organism evolving to a new state of self-awareness and sophistication, the fake news sites have begun reporting on fake news sites. After the Guardian article, the website prntly.com ran a story about Macedonian front groups "preying on Trump supporters for money and information" and backed by George Soros - the billionaire donor to the Democrats, and a perceived liberal 'elite'.

The headline: BREAKING: Wikileaks exposes Soros tied Macedonian clickbait empire to dupe Trump fans.

This is truly post-truth politics.

[Vangelovski]

Cheap short-sighted scams. These things will only ruin long-term trust in Macedonia...much like Nigeria.

[vicsinad]

Cheap short-sighted scams. These things will only ruin long-term trust in Macedonia...much like Nigeria.

I believe you're right.

[tchaiku]

It is such a shame he lost.

[Amphipolis]

Fake online news from Macedonia - Trumps Veles (7 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJwnBDZfJHA