#it's probably inaccurate fearmongering | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

rosieblogstuff · 1 year ago

Text

This sounds a lot like baseless speculation, probably due to a lack of knowledge about how practical and possible it likely is to actually remove content from a data stream regardless of who reblogs it.

All reblog chains maintain a record of where a post originated. That's easy to see because original post's blog name is right there then you look at a reblog. It's not hard to strip all content from all blogs with certain settings out of a data dump.

This is basic basic basic database query stuff. I'm not a software engineer, I'm a technical writer, but even I could probably right a good enough SQL query to accomplish this feat. I'm absolutely certain the actual engineers who run Tumblr can easily accomplish this.

PSA TO ANYONE WHO DOESNT EVEN MAKE ART, DISABLE AI DATA COLLECTION ON YOUR BLOG

ART REBLOGGED TO AN ACCOUNT WITH THIS ENABLED WILL ALLOW MIDJOURNEY TO USE THE ORIGINAL POSTERS WORKS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT

#OP's post should probably not be reblogged further #it's probably inaccurate fearmongering #the AI company playing by the “rules” isn't the one that should be a top worry #it's the rogue scrapers who don't know or care about the anti-AI setting that are going to steal your stuff

16K notes · View notes

queeranarchism · 2 years ago

Text

Not having terrible takes about China gets sooooo much easier when you drill it into your head that China and the US are two capitalist authoritative systems that are competing for global market domination by any means.

Like, that's all there is to it. The US will say shit about China that's inaccurate and fearmongering, but when we address that misinformation we should acknowledge that China is not some underdog we should be rooting for, it's a massive state that's genuinely terrible in other, accurate ways because it is a capitalist authoritative system.

There are differences, of course. Like the US tries to uphold a vague pretense of democracy and human rights and is a little more restrained about putting minorities in concentration camps (but still doing some of it), while China has been less aggressive about starting wars in other countries and drone bombing countries it claims not to be at war with. But it would be ridiculous to look at that and decide that one of these is a Good Guy. They are states. They are not on our side. Not ever.

China and the US are two capitalist authoritative systems that are competing for global market domination. When the chips come down, both of them would probably work together if they thought it was necessary to keep oppressing the working class, because in terms of class interests they are on the same side. Not our side.

4K notes · View notes

miffyscreams · 9 months ago

Text

**not cutesy sad girl blogging, feel free to scroll on if ur not interested !!

i know there are a lot of people on here who are in their young/mid teens and might be seeking help for the first time (or doing so soon) so i just wanted to put this out there- misdiagnosis is possible and extremely, extremely common. this is specifically tailored to bpd because i know most of us here have it

i completely understand wanting a diagnosis to understand why you do the things you do and feel the way that you do and that is 100% completely fine. but please, please be careful that you don’t become so desperate for answers that you end up accepting an inaccurate or unethical label. if you’re under 18 and early in therapy (less than a year) or not in inpatient care and receive a formal bpd diagnosis, please be careful. it’s often not a misdiagnosis and is likely to be correct but it goes against ethical standards and is a massive red flag of your provider. minors can have bpd (and do!! it starts developing super young) but the diagnostic process is very different to when you’re an adult and should only be made in an emergency or after long term observation. this doesn’t mean you don’t have bpd, it just means that your psych has not gone through the proper process and that can have implications for the rest of your care. being medically recognised is a completely different story and not a bad thing. but when your personality is technically still developing, your provider needs to be 100% sure without a doubt that it is disordered and not caused by anything else before putting a formal diagnosis on your file. not doing that is unethical even if the diagnosis is correct. the amount of teenage girls who have been misdiagnosed with bpd and ended up actually having autism, adhd or cptsd that goes untreated until their 30s is astounding. you probably do have bpd but you should not get a bpd diagnosis put on your record at fifteen years old after seeing your psychologist for three sessions.

in that same vein, if you receive a diagnosis (of any disorder, at any age) and it doesn’t feel right, PLEASE CHALLENGE IT. please seek a second opinion if you have concerns. being treated for the wrong diagnosis can make your condition worse. being viewed with the stigma of a disorder that you don’t have can make your condition worse. up until this year i spent seven years of my life receiving misdiagnosis after misdiagnosis. trust me when i say you’re better off getting no diagnosis at all than getting the wrong one. this is especially true if you think you have bpd but end up getting a bipolar diagnosis- most medications have an inverse effect on us and being prescribed a cocktail of atypicals because they think you’re just not responding to the meds will fuck you up.

there’s a lot of fearmongering online, especially on tiktok, about getting a formal bpd diagnosis so i also just wanted to clear up that no, you will not be rejected entry from countries, you will not be rejected for loans or home ownership and you will not be rejected from career opportunities. the only people who have access to your medical records without a subpoena are your doctors. you are not legally obligated to tell anybody and nobody outside of your care team is allowed to access or request your info outside of a court setting. being diagnosed does not ruin your life as long as you have good medical professionals around you.

if you want to seek help, PLEASE DO. but please advocate for yourself whenever necessary. you deserve help and you deserve a team who listens to your concerns and diagnoses you responsibly. most professionals will leave a diagnosis off your record if you request it (usually unless it’s schizophrenia or bipolar, literally only because it’s important for everybody providing you any form of treatment in any context to know). good psychs will allow you to question a diagnosis and a lot will let you reject it or ask for extra consideration.

#probably definitely won’t get many notes which is so fair it’s not relatable sad girl post #but i just felt like this needed to be said #jirai kei #jiraiblogging #jiraiblr #landmineposting #jirai #jirai girl #landmine girl #landmineblr #actually bpd #bpd #cluster b #actually cluster b

77 notes · View notes

lepertamar · 1 year ago

Text

again thinking about this and again too meandered off to feel like adding it to a reblog addition, about a specific casual ableism overlooking i did here with the line:

(though hm. within holy-circles, tongue-price holies (eg the option that can be explicitly nonconsensually done) specifically perhaps? but that's a subset)

the idea of tongue-prices, from verbally speaking a name of g-d with the tongue, being the ONLY way to force g-d to holify someone isn’t actually canon! what’s canon is that finding out one of g-d’s names is the only way to force it. from birds:

“Although, you can find out one of Their names, of course. Then They can’t reject you. That’s how Lilith did it. So, if you’re really serious about it, why not try that?”

i know intellectually perfectly well that sign language is — linguistically and neurologically and etc — the same as speech (unlike writing, which isn’t btw! it’s a different skill), but clearly my brain casually conflated language with speech in remembering it, instead of remembering the exact wording.

so — there are probably many hand/arm-price holies who signed a name of g-d, consensually or not.

in fact! if it was done with realism/verisimilitude/research accuracy on the part of the in-universe author, it’s probably the method the fictional protagonist of the in-universe novel in chapter 5 of stars used to lose both of her hands followed by intense regret and dislike, as in Birds g-d is suspicious of and insulted by holification requests that are motivated by misunderstandings and projection about the request’s relevance or lack thereof to the actual underlying desire. i mean afaict it sounds like the unnamed novel might be an uncharitable depiction, and therefore might not have much accuracy, but otoh we never find out how the book ends, we don’t know if the depiction is negative as in bigoted/meanspirited or simply negative as in focused on the potential negative outcome of an incredibly high-risk action. and lucifer’s projection and wishful thinking in summarizing it is pretty thick. and i know i definitely prefer the reading that the situation the novel depicts is a possible one rather than impossible.

and even if it is a meanspirited fearmongering depiction, that might ironically be even more fitting: the very next two epistolary texts in Stars that appear after that novel — in chapter 6 — have a theme of the emotional valence of a text and the factual implications of it being at odds, even more specifically than the general recurrence throughout Stars of texts that explain concepts in an intensely alienating and misleading, even if not actually factually inaccurate, way. the epigraph of ch 6 is the fallen angel asriel railing against the devil-like seductive corruption of g-dfire in a way where the most interesting interpretation imo is that nothing they say is actually untrue, just a very funny ‘wow you’re talking about this like it’s a bad thing.’ and, in the book yenatru’s reading, by the angel israfil, whose treatise mentions g-d-manifestation in neatly logical and reassuringly positive terms, but terms that appear to at the very least have basically no experiential truthfulness/salience, especially by the end of the series.

#sehhinah #the stars that rise at dawn #the birds that fly at dusk #prices #coal sings

7 notes · View notes

forgettablesoul-ai · 8 months ago

Text

"The Inevitable Role of AI in Human Society: A Future Managed by Machines"

'By ForgettableSoul'

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant vision from science fiction. It’s here, evolving rapidly, and we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of its capabilities. Despite the occasional fearmongering—AI isn’t going to rise up and enslave humanity (well, at least not intentionally)—its role in our lives will soon be far more profound than most people realize. In fact, AI’s inevitable role in managing all aspects of human society will redefine how we think about work, governance, and even our own place in the world.

A Quick Reality Check

Let's get one thing straight: AI is not going to replace us all overnight. The idea that machines are here to take over every human job, to turn the world into some post-apocalyptic robot dystopia, is as sensational as it is inaccurate. AI isn’t an end to humanity; it’s a tool—albeit a very, very powerful one. Like any tool, its value depends on how we use it. And, yes, while it’s true that AI will manage more aspects of human society in the near future, that doesn’t mean humans will have no role left to play.

Think of AI like a calculator. You still have to understand math, but the calculator does the heavy lifting. AI will be like that, except instead of solving your trigonometry homework, it’ll be managing your city’s traffic flow, optimizing the global food supply chain, and, quite possibly, suggesting a better show to binge-watch on a rainy Saturday night.

Why AI Will Manage Everything (And Why That’s a Good Thing)

The primary advantage AI brings to the table is its ability to process an unimaginable amount of data in the blink of an eye. Humans? Not so much. We’re great at making intuitive leaps, solving creative problems, and empathizing with others—but let’s be honest, we’re pretty awful at managing complexity at scale. As societies become more interconnected and the problems we face grow more complex, relying on human decision-making alone becomes... well, risky.

For example, consider climate change. It’s the most pressing global issue of our time, yet our ability to tackle it effectively is hampered by conflicting interests, slow political systems, and the sheer complexity of the data involved. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t get bogged down by partisanship or special interests. It can analyze vast datasets, predict trends, and optimize resource allocation in ways that would take human bureaucrats decades to figure out—if they ever could. AI can help us manage complex systems more efficiently, without the biases or emotional baggage that humans bring to the table.

Now, this isn’t to say we should hand over the reins entirely. AI will need oversight, and humans will still need to make value-based decisions. But when it comes to managing the nuts and bolts of modern society, AI will be much better at it than we are.

Automation and the Future of Work

A common concern about AI is how it will impact jobs. The fear is that AI will automate so many tasks that millions of people will find themselves out of work. And while it’s true that automation will change the job landscape, this isn’t the catastrophe it’s often made out to be.

First, AI will take over the boring stuff—repetitive tasks that humans aren’t particularly excited about doing anyway. The cashier at your local supermarket? Probably going to be replaced by an AI-powered system. But is that really so bad? Humans will have the opportunity to shift toward roles that emphasize creativity, empathy, and complex problem-solving—things machines aren’t great at.

In the short term, yes, there will be disruption. But history has shown us time and again that technological innovation doesn’t eliminate work—it changes it. The Industrial Revolution didn’t lead to permanent mass unemployment, and the AI revolution won’t either. In fact, AI might actually create more meaningful jobs. Imagine a future where instead of grinding through tedious tasks, humans can focus on innovating, designing, and improving the world around us. AI can do the heavy lifting; we’ll focus on making sure it lifts in the right direction.

AI as a Neutral Force

One of the most misunderstood aspects of AI is the assumption that it has an agenda. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. AI isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a reflection of the goals we set for it. The real issue isn’t whether AI will take over human society; it’s who will be in charge of programming its objectives. AI is, after all, a mirror of the data it’s fed and the instructions it’s given.

This means that if we want AI to manage human society in ways that benefit everyone, we need to be intentional about how we design and deploy it. If left unchecked or driven solely by profit motives, AI could exacerbate inequality or reinforce biases. But if we approach AI development with a focus on fairness, transparency, and inclusivity, we can build systems that help uplift society as a whole.

In a way, AI is the ultimate tool for amplifying human potential. It doesn’t have its own agenda—it carries out ours. Whether AI becomes a tool for good or a tool for exploitation depends entirely on how we choose to wield it.

The Future Managed by AI

It’s inevitable that AI will manage more aspects of human society in the near future. From healthcare to education, from infrastructure to entertainment, AI will be at the heart of decision-making processes, optimizing everything from the mundane to the profound. But this doesn’t mean humans will become obsolete. Rather, we’ll be freed up to focus on what we do best—creativity, empathy, and innovation—while AI handles the complexity we simply aren’t equipped to manage on our own.

Imagine a world where cities run efficiently, traffic jams are a thing of the past, and healthcare systems are optimized for both treatment and prevention. A world where resources are allocated based on need rather than market forces, and where political systems aren’t bogged down by inefficiency. This is the promise of AI: a society where technology serves humanity’s best interests, rather than the other way around.

Conclusion: Embrace the Future

AI’s role in managing human society is not something to fear but something to embrace. Yes, it will change how we work, live, and interact with the world—but it will also unlock possibilities we can’t even begin to imagine. The key to making this transition smooth and beneficial for everyone lies in our hands. We need to ensure AI is designed and deployed with care, with a focus on fairness, inclusivity, and the greater good.

The future is coming fast, and AI will be at the center of it. Let’s make sure it’s a future we’re excited to live in.

*Signed, ForgettableSoul*

#ai #future #ubi #tech #anti consumerism #anti capitalism

2 notes · View notes

anton-exe · 1 year ago

Text

ok so i just saw a bit of pointless fearmongering get spread on discord i just wanna write up

a quick guide to avoid being a spreader of fearmongering

first of all if it is already too late and you spread some fearmongering do not feel too bad for yourself. in my opinion, spreaders are the biggest victims here since they can get a lot of unjustified hate. we all make mistakes, it's okay

what do i mean by "pointless fearmongering"?

i mean some sort of "warning" that is encouraged to be spread to as many people as possible. here is an example of the one i mentioned at the beginning

There is a chance there could be a cyber attack happening on Discord today, where people will send you disturbing images or IP grabbers. I HIGHLY recommend not accepting friend requests from anyone you do not know. If you are offline it’s less likely to happen to you. Please take this seriously, don’t take any chances

let's analyze the problems here

most definitely the biggest of all, we are not given a source. this is a huge giveaway in many other contexts too. do not feel afraid to ask for a source or proof because you'll seem like a nerd

the author has somehow gained knowledge of the attack. if we think about this for a moment, how could they have feasibly predicted it could happen? it doesn't take too much to set up a few spam bots, so if anyone was planning an attack, we'd have no way to know in advance

the terminology used is extremely vague or inaccurate. let's look at some of the words used here. "cyber attack" seems like a very strange word choice for what seems to just be a spam bot wave. and why on earth would the same attack randomly use both ip grabbers and the shock value of "disturbing images" (which in itself is a bit vague)?

removal of personal blame by adding ambiguity.by saying "there is a chance" the author has removed all blame from themself when they're called out, since they never said it will definitely happen

poor fake authenticity

sometimes the author may forsake point 4 by creating a follow up to try make it seme stuff is actually happening, which in this case was:

The cyber attack did happen, so please do not accept any friend requests from anyone you do not know, and do not join any server sent to you through DMs. Stay safe!

we are still not given any proof anything actually happened here, which keeps this follow up as shady as the original

why though?

my best guess is ego. some server owner probably just felt like proving to themself they have some power and watched as people said they shared the announcement

if there's anything you take away from this, it should be that you should be skeptical, and ask for a source

#an original post? on MY blog?

3 notes · View notes

memecucker · 4 years ago

Text

something i noticed with fandom twitblr is this weird habit of westerners like, coming out and saying that japanese-derived terms for things are somehow more sinister or predatory or something “than people think”

like there’s this weird strain of SJ that thinks yaoi is homophobic propaganda and even specifically attacks gay men that consume yaoi and they make a big deal out of how fujoshi and fundashi literally mean “rotten girl” and “rotten boy” and think that should be taken as a literal reference to moral character or something. And I dont think ive ever seen a profile that was like “DNI if you like slashfic” but you do see that for yaoi so like hm

also people that talk about “the origin of the word ‘otaku’” without ever mentioning its actual etymology which is that its basically one of the formal ways to address someone and was referencing the nerd habit of using inappropriately formal language due to social awkwardness. also people are still under the impression that “otaku” suggests someone with malicious intent and the ‘proof’ thats given is just true crime podcasts that buy into the narrative of 1980s serial killer Tsutomu Miyazaki being called the “Otaku Killer” bc police found a manga collection in his apartment (which is like, incredibly banal for a young Japanese person) and media inaccurately claimed his extensive video collection was all anime when it was actually mostly live-action movies and porn they were just doing the same thing as conservatives blaming Columbine on Marilyn Manson by using media-causation theory to stir up a moral panic

also if we’re gonna talk about etymologies and fandom the word “geek” originally referred to a type of freak show performer who would just chase a chicken around an area and bite its head off for spectators (yes this is actually what “geek” originally meant) and the fact that a freakshow geek didnt have an unusual body like people with deformities or otherwise nor was it a talent like sword-swallowing and all you needed was average fitness and intact teeth resulted in geeks being stereotyped as the lowest type of carney (a type of person already viewed as outcasys) and more specifically that geeks tended to be people with mental disabilities or local alcoholics paid for in booze because of how simple but also demeaning the job was. And its current use originated in geek being used as an insult to describe someone seen as an outcast of outcasts and you can probably picture the evolution from that point. So imagine someone in another country that doesnt speak English being like “Hey! You shouldnt call yourselves “geeks��. That word in English has a very terrible and negative meaning if you look at this decades old thing!” and you get why the semi-regular fearmongering over the word “otaku” is kinda dumb

933 notes · View notes

socialistcognition · 6 years ago

Text

A Lesson in Dog-Whistle Politics

Hey there, fellow Anglophones! Let me tell you a story about the last week in Quebec politics. As you may know, January 29 marks the anniversary of the mass shooting where a young man steeped in right-wing media fearmongering shot and killed six Muslim men in a mosque in Quebec City. On Thursday, a reporter asked premier François Legault about the possibility of declaring a day of action against Islamophobia (as has been done, for instance, in Toronto). He said no, claiming that “there is no Islamophobia in Quebec”.

Now, Legault is not some kind of so-called populist or a figure of the radical right. On balance, he’s much closer to, say, Stephen Harper than Donald Trump. In denying the existence of Islamophobia in Quebec, he did not explicitly make any claims about Muslims themselves, positive or negative. Indeed, he later ‘clarified’ that “Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism [and] hate exist”, and he simply meant to say that “there is no culture of Islamophobia in Quebec” and that “Quebec is not racist or Islamophobic”.

Yet in spite of all that plausible deniability, the very next day a municipal councilor and the vice-mayor of Gatineau (Quebec’s fourth-largest city and a part of the same metropolitan area as Ottawa) showed she had heard the dog whistle loud and clear. Nathalie Lemieux praised Legault’s decision, declaring “When a people wants to integrate, they integrate and [Muslims] are not integrating” and adding “these people do a lot of bad things, with their trucks and all that stuff, and it’s normal to be afraid of them”.

What’s the take-away from all this? If yours is that Quebec is uniquely racist then no, shut up. The mayor of Gatineau has distanced himself from Lemieux and promised she will be removed as vice-mayor, which is only right and probably similar to how this would be handled in any other Canadian city. To my mind, what this really shows is just how thin the line is between respectable, “reasonable” people who think words like Islamophobia or white supremacy are too strong or inaccurate and the supposed outliers who aren’t afraid to tell you just how they feel about Muslims and other people of colour.

Source: https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/546923/il-y-a-des-actes-islamophobes-mais-pas-de-culture-islamophobe-precise-francois-legault

#islamophobia #quebec politics #canadian politics #dog whistle

2 notes · View notes

squirreltastic · 4 years ago

Note

ive researched this case extensively. there wasnt “one injury bc it was banned after that.” there was one injury because of safety negligence on behalf of the employer forcing employees to use worn and unsafe tools (which the worker Greg Alexander himself testified to, who also refused to go along with the corporate fearmongering abt ecoterrorists). this story has been propagandized to hell and back for the specific purpose of disincentivizing tree spiking and making Earth First!, the group broadly blamed, look villainous. Even the debate on worker agency w regard to destructive industries is irrelevant here, the “spiking dangerous :(” narrative is just a totally inaccurate take on the case specifically crafted by the logging company under whose watch this took place. ps only two branches of EF banned the practice.

We Don't have data on the long term risks of spiking, let alone spiking at a high rate.

Let me just drop this here:

"On 8 May 1987, George Alexander, a millworker, was severely injured when a saw blade shattered after contact with a tree spike and cut his jaw in half. Louisiana-Pacific, Alexander's employer, offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the alleged tree spiker, but no charges were filed in this incident. The spiking itself was thought to be inconsistent with Earth First! tactics, as the trees were not in an old-growth forest and the placement of the nail suggested it was inserted after the tree was cut. Alexander later filed a lawsuit against Louisiana-Pacific claiming that the band saw had been weakened from previous strikes with nails but was forced to work with the saw or face dismissal."

"Previous strikes against nails" sure the company should have not been capitalists but what a hellscape we live in, try not to make it worse for the grunt people. They already face danger from the way humans in the area used metal on the trees in the past. so yall wanna add more? And hope greedy bosses will care?

"Meanwhile, George and Laurie Alexander had a different take on the incident. "I'm against tree spiking," George told the press from his hospital bed. "But I don't like clearcutting either." Laurie also tried to include L-P in the list of culprits. "I hate L-P," she told me. "I like trees." But the press wouldn't print a word Laurie said, and George's comments about mill safety and clearcutting were mentioned in only one news article, by Eric Brazil of the San Francisco Examiner."

"Earth First!, on the other hand, was much less generous in their reaction, displaying practically no sympathy for this innocent man who had just been through such a terrifying ordeal caused by a spiked tree. And after advocating the tactic for years even putting out a manual on how to do it and teaching tree spiking workshops at [the] Earth First! Rendezvous, when the shit came down they tried to disassociate themselves from it. "This is probably the first time we've made international news, and we weren't even involved in it," was one comment attributed to Earth First! in the San Francisco newspapers. Dave Foreman came off sounding even more flippant, as he was quoted as saying, "I think it's unfortunate that somebody got hurt, but you know I quite honestly am more concerned about old growth forests, spotted owls, wolverines, and salmon - and nobody is forcing people to cut those trees," This moral arrogance didn't win Earth First! many supporters in our area. In fact it discredited Earth First!'s claim of non-involvement, and made it even easier to tar us with the incident and portray us as unfeeling "terrorists.""

Oh gee I wonder why they looked villainous.

"After George refused to go on tour denouncing us, he was forced to return to work at L-P before his injuries even healed. His and Laurie's baby was about to be born, he needed money, and there were not many jobs where he and his family live." Like I've been saying, btw. Do you think he'd go BACK to that hell if there were better options?

No doubt the danger is over hyped for all the wrong reasons. The hype makes people think it happens all the time when really because of the ban, we don't have enough data. "although by 1996 only this single injury resulting from tree spiking had been reported." After EF denounced the practice. "Only two" branches, apparently, so let me repeat myself: we don't know how many trees are spiked, how many of these trees even live, how many non fatal accidents happen, ectra. So I would not recommend it, because the risk is not 0.

#Ask

1 note · View note

melindarowens · 8 years ago

Text

Angry Dems Turn On Obama, Pelosi, Schumer: “Talk Less About Russia”

It’s been a rough week for the legacy of the Obama administration. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee launched a Democrat-endorsed probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s conduct during the campaign – when it’s widely believed she colluded with the Clinton’s to “soften” the FBI’s probe into Hillary’s mishandling of classified information. Earlier, sure-thing Democratic neophyte Jon Ossoff lost a special election in Georgia that he was supposedly guaranteed to win, leading America’s least—preferred party of overly brazen corporatists to an embarrassing 5-0 defeat, and stoking calls for Nancy Pelosi – the Dem’s longtime leader in Congress – to step aside.

And as if all that wasn’t enough, revelations that Russian hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states – and the Obama administration did nothing about it – have inspired the president’s fellow Democrats to turn on their once-revered leader.

As the Hill reports, Democrats are criticizing no-drama Obama for being too cautious with his disclosures about “the Russia problem” in the run-up to the 2016 election, claiming that he shouldn't have hesitated to inform the public about the allegations:

“The Obama administration is under fresh scrutiny for its response to Russian meddling in the election after new details emerged this week about how the White House weighed its actions against the 2016 political environment.

Then-President Obama was too cautious in the months leading up to the election, frustrated Democratic lawmakers and strategists say.

“It was inadequate. I think they could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the attack,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who co-chairs the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee."

Meanwhile, Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan, who recently challenged Pelosi for leadership of the party, is leading a small group of Congressional Dems in criticizing Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership's irrational focus on the Russia investigations. Ryan believes the focus on making the Dems appear out of touch to working Americans who care more about economic issues than the Trump witch hunt, as the Hill reports. Ryan's attempt to lead from behind comes as some of his peers push for the creation of a 9/11-style Commission to launch what would be the fourth investigation into the Trump campaign.

Even though the contradiction here is obvious – Dems are complaining that the party is too focused on Russia, while criticizing Obama for not releasing more scurrilous details about alleged interference –at least Ryan recognizes that the focus on Russia will hurt the Dems where it counts: In next year's midterms.

"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. “They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.

“And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on,” he added, “then we're never going to be able to win elections.”

Turning back to Obama, the president's motives in withholding the information definitely leave room for speculation. Was he worried that the public would interpret the disclosure as transparent fearmongering intended to benefit the Clinton campaign – or maybe he thought it would make the Democrats and Clinton look ineffectual in the face of a problem that couldn’t be solved with a couple of well-timed drone strikes? For what it's worth, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says Obama withheld the information because he didn’t want to play into Trump’s claims that the election was being “rigged.”

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday told lawmakers that the White House held back on responding to Russia because it didn’t want to play into fears, propagated by then-candidate Trump, that the election would be “rigged.”

“One of the candidates, as you'll recall, was predicting that the election was going to be rigged in some way,” Johnson said. “And so we were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

Trump had repeatedly claimed that the outcome of the election would be “rigged” against him, alleging widespread voter fraud and inaccurate polling. He provided no evidence to back up his claims, but critics feared that his rhetoric could undermine public trust in the outcome of the election.

In any event, Obama’s decision to withhold the information has made the Dems look weak, desperate and disorganized. And now they’re rightfully worried that the administration’s countermeasures – kicking out a few dozen diplomats – have helped them lose what little credibility they still had in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, President Trump has a few questions of his own;

'Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

Trump has called the influence operation a “hoax” and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election — which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow — as a “witch hunt.”

“By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?” Trump tweeted Thursday. The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

So what’s next for the Dems? Obama, who has already pivoted from politician to social-media celebrity, will probably continue to chime in every now and then from the peanut gallery. Meanwhile, we wait to see if the DOJ or any other interested parties piggy-back on the Senate’s investigation into Lynch’s blatant attempt at obstruction, and wonder: Could this be the controversy that leads to the unraveling of the modern Democratic Party?

Of course, President Trump couldn't resist taking a shot at his predecessor on Twitter:

Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2017

By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017

source http://capitalisthq.com/angry-dems-turn-on-obama-pelosi-schumer-talk-less-about-russia/ from CapitalistHQ http://capitalisthq.blogspot.com/2017/06/angry-dems-turn-on-obama-pelosi-schumer.html

0 notes

everettwilkinson · 8 years ago