2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
And that may be true, but it doesn't follow at all that such a government would be a dictatorship. The U.S. Constitution would need to be subverted before that happens. And unlike our conspiracy theorist friend, I don't perceive anything inherently nefarious about the idea of a global government. Global corporations aren't inherently nefarious, after all. In this age of instantaneous communication and rapid travel, why should geography define our political borders?Quote: MrVI submit that UNLESS the peoples of the world come under the control of a single political body the proliferation of nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to their use and the immolation of earth in nuclear war.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Besides, I don't think a nuclear war will be started by humans in the next 25 years, but I do think a technological singularity will. Skynet didn't become self aware in 1997 like it did in the movies, but when it does, all bets are off. I think the chances are zero that a global human government is formed before the rise of an artificial superintelligence. The reason it's called a singularity is that, like a black hole, you simply can't see past it to understand what's inside (or after).
.....Among those two different types, there are different races. At the top of the pecking order are the Dracos, who are winged albino reptiles. Below them is a race called the Reptoids, who do not have wings, and have brown and green skin. The Reptoids are soldiers and scientists and are responsible for secret government programs and bases, such as the Montauk Project, which was an alleged group of tests done by the United States army where they tried to developed fringe technologies like time travel.
..... There are a number of famous people who are suspected of being Reptilian. This includes such notable families as the Rockefellers in the United States, the Rothschild family from Germany, and the British House of Windsor. It’s also believed that many of the Presidents of the United States are Reptilian, including the Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton, who is apparently higher than Bill in the Reptilian Hierarchy), Barack Obama, and both Presidents Bush. In fact, the Bushes are an integral part of the conspiracy because of how many famous people are related to them.
.....Not only have the Reptilians infiltrated banking, government, and the world’s royalty, but they are also some well-known and beloved entertainers like Bob Hope, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie. Needless to say, with so many possible Reptilian people among us, it makes it hard to trust anyone. YOU COULD EVEN BE A REPTILIAN AND NOT EVEN KNOW IT.
The real conspiracy is why is the Ravens-Steelers game that is literally on right now -- Christmas Sunday -- being called "Thursday Night Football" by NBC?Quote: lilredroosterHere are the top 10 conspiracy theories for anyone who wants to go for it:
The JFK Assassination.
9/11 Cover-Up.
Area 51 and the Aliens.
Paul Is Dead.
Secret Societies Control the World.
The Moon Landings Were Faked.
Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Holocaust Revisionism.
The CIA and Aids.
The Reptilian Theory.
Quote: MathExtremistThe real conspiracy is why is the Ravens-Steelers game that is literally on right now -- Christmas Sunday -- being called "Thursday Night Football" by NBC?
Probably some marketing genius had input and wanted to keep the "branding" of the product specific to that particular network...
Quote: MathExtremistYou've made the leap from a 66-year-old quote to the conclusion that world government is not only inevitable but it will necessarily be a Cuba-like dictatorship.
That's a remarkably dire prediction, but also remarkably unlikely given that the tenure of our constitutional republic has lasted generations longer than any dictatorship ever has in the history of humanity. Your doomsday prophesy is, thankfully, roughly equal to my odds of coming out on a hard nine at the craps table.
That's the idea, duh. You are at least correct here. The ONE thing that stands in the way of world government is a free United States and our constitutional republic. Frankly, I'm surprised as sh*t to see you call it properly a constitutional republic, I've never seen a liberal say that before. You are correct, that's what it is. And it stands in the way of their plans for world government. THAT, is why they are trying to destroy our Constitution and our republic. How would you like to have another eight years of the Bush Crime Family? Another eight years of Obama (although you think he was ok). You don't trust Trump with our Constitution, maybe you're right. Maybe HE will destroy it. Presto, hard nine! So why are you so sure our Constitutional Republic will survive an indefinite assault?
Plans for world government can be traced back way before Christ. But the ball really got rolling on May 1, 1776. So it practically parallels our own nation's history.
Quote: bobbartop
Plans for world government can be traced back way before Christ. But the ball really got rolling on May 1, 1776. So it practically parallels our own nation's history.
Quote: bobbartop
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
-- James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
The father, Paul Warburg, had worked for Kuhn, Loeb and Co., with an annual salary of $500,000, in 1913. That's the equivalent of well over $10 million a year in today's dollars. Paul Warburg VOLUNTARILY resigned Kuhn, Loeb, to become vice chairman of the first Federal Reserve Board, assigned by Woodrow Wilson, at a salary of $12,000 per year! $500,000, to $12,000. He got a raise. lol
I can see such a ploy backfiring just as easily. If there would be such a scenario where this became tyranny, likely to have suicidal/hopeless factions set them off. MAD only works when the players feel they have something to lose. Obviously having weapons like these have no use, the only reason countries want them is to gain respect from the others, and for a wish not to be dominated.Quote: MrVI submit that UNLESS the peoples of the world come under the control of a single political body the proliferation of nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to their use and the immolation of earth in nuclear war.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Automation might trigger such an event as well. Look, they think they don't need the other people, so they clear the board, hide, and rebuild with the robots, and have the world to themselves. Noah's Ark II. An army of robots clearing all the radiation, they take over the world. It might not work, but arrogance won't care.
More than 800 years, I'd say:Quote: bobbartopPlans for world government can be traced back way before Christ.
Quote: Isaiah 2:2-52. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
5. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.
Are you suggesting that world peace under a global law, as the prophets foretold, is not actually a desirable goal?
Quote: MathExtremistMore than 800 years, I'd say:
Are you suggesting that world peace under a global law, as the prophets foretold, is not actually a desirable goal?
I don't want peace, I want freedom. Vietnam has peace now, no more war in Vietnam, and it sucks there.
Have you ever tried to get something done at City Hall? What about the State Capitol? Think it's easy to get things done in Washington D.C.? How about writing to your world representative in the world capitol? It would suck.
Only two types of people want world government.
1. Gullible starry-eyed dreamers
2. Mass-murdering power-hungry maniacs
Between the two, which group do you think will overtake the other?
I should not have mentioned the "before Christ" thing. It muddies the water. May 1, 1776 is the important date.
Quote: bobbartop
I should not have mentioned the "before Christ" thing. It muddies the water.
It's okay. Don't feel bad about that. The water is really, really, muddy anyway.the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
Trump tweets and the whole world takes notice. Things don't take nearly as long as they used to.Quote: bobbartopI don't want peace, I want freedom. Vietnam has peace now, no more war in Vietnam, and it sucks there.
Have you ever tried to get something done at City Hall? What about the State Capitol? Think it's easy to get things done in Washington D.C.? How about writing to your world representative in the world capitol? It would suck.
And nice job picking Vietnam as your example of a peaceful country. Why not Sweden? Sweden hasn't been involved in a war in over 200 years (it's forces have, fighting terrorists in the Middle East, but not the country itself) and it's ranked #1 on the Forbes list of best countries for doing business. The U.S. is ranked 23rd and we've been in lots of wars in the past 200 years.
Sweden is also #10 on the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index, while the United States is #20. So by all three measures (peace, prosperity, and freedom), Sweden outranks the United States. So do several other countries.
You have this irrational patriotism clouding your judgment, but in reality the U.S. isn't the shining paragon of freedom you imagine it to be, not according to libertarian think tanks like Cato.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
Quote: MathExtremist
You have this irrational patriotism clouding your judgment, but in reality the U.S. isn't the shining paragon of freedom you imagine it to be, not according to libertarian think tanks like Cato.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
Think tanks and their kind are exactly why we have President Trump. Their years of telling people what is best for them and how ignorant they are woke them up. And these "intellectuals " will be the last to understand it.
For being so smart, they sure are dumb.
Welcome to Soviet America.
This is simultaneously bad and overdue. Quo Vadis, though. Who's left.to be unbiased in dissecting disinformation?
Quote: bobbartopPresident Obama signs the NDAA 2017, which will allow the federal government to come after and shut down any media it deems “disinformation and propaganda.”
Welcome to Soviet America.
So goodbye to CNN and MSNBC, then.
Quote: EvenBobSo goodbye to CNN and MSNBC, then.
Certainly goodbye to Faux News. Silver lining.
Quote: bobbartopPresident Obama signs the NDAA 2017, which will allow the federal government to come after and shut down any media it deems “disinformation and propaganda.”
Welcome to Soviet America.
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016
"In the version of the bill incorporated into the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Congress would ask the United States Secretary of State to collaborate with the United States Secretary of Defense and other relevant Federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center to fight against propaganda from foreign governments, and publicize the nature of ongoing foreign propaganda and disinformation operations against the U.S. and other countries.[10] The bill said this inter-agency effort should: "counter foreign propaganda and disinformation directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_and_Disinformation_Act
That doesn't sound to me like it is an attack on our Freedom of the Press...do you have other legitimate documentation that is an attack on our rights? I know Wikipedia isn't always a great source; I'd like to see where the idea this makes us "Soviet America" comes from...
Please use major sources; not the at.right or alt.left crap.
Quote: EvenBobSo goodbye to CNN and MSNBC, then.
Nope.
Quote: beachbumbabsCertainly goodbye to Faux News. Silver lining.
Nope.
Not going anywhere either...
Quote: beachbumbabsCertainly goodbye to Faux News. Silver lining.
Fox was just as anti Trump as the
others. Hannity was the only pro
Trump commentator. Shep Smith,
Megyn, even Cavuto, all hated
Trump and made no effort to hide
it. Bill O'Reilly was the only one
who was neutral, and that's because
he wanted Trump on his show once
a week. The panel on the 6pm news
was virulent anti Trump 95% of
the time. Right to the end Krauthammer
said Trump didn't have a chance.
Bill Kristol was so bad they stopped
inviting him.
The difference between Fox and the
others is, the weren't so stupidly
obvious as CNN and MSNBC. It wasn't
24/7 anti Trump. We're starting to
realize now that they were all so against
him because his election would set
the Bilderberg elite world order, which
runs every media news outlet, Trump
winning would set them back a decade.
He had to be defeated at all cost.
Now they're all flocking to Trump, making
nice, to see what they can salvage. It's
good to be the king, like they were, and
to lose it is a disheartening experience. Like
I keep saying, we'll never know the true size
of the bullet we dodged by not electing
their queen..
Quote: RonCthis inter-agency effort should: "counter foreign propaganda and disinformation directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests".
So nothing in there about lies and propaganda disseminated via the United States Secretary of State, the United States Secretary of Defense and other relevant Federal agencies that undermine United States interests and the interest of its citizens?
These powers, in the hands of your democratically elected president ! ! !. . . Well, you guys broke it: You guys bought it!
Quote: beachbumbabsCertainly goodbye to Faux News. Silver lining.
How does the Senate leader lying about a Presidential candidate not paying taxes factor into this? When a certain network reports it as fact over and over again. Just food for thought when you open that door.
Harry Reid.....Nevada's shame.
Quote: BozHow does the Senate leader lying about a Presidential candidate not paying taxes factor into this? When a certain network reports it as fact over and over again.
My experience is, people hate Fox because
it tells the truth more often than not, and
not because it's faux. The other news
networks are great at ignoring half the
news out there, like the size of Trump
rallies. When Obama ran in 08 that's
all you saw on CNN and MSNBC, the
huge crowds at rallies. It was crickets
on Trump drawing 15K or 25K, no
news there.
Quote: EvenBobMy experience is, people hate Fox because
it tells the truth more often than not, and
not because it's faux.
Hardly. If their base audience saw too much criticism or focus on negative conservative stories they'd leave the station in droves. So they minimize the coverage. You see 5 minutes on the size of Trump rallies vs something important. Might talk for 5 minutes on whether Obama was giving the finger in a photo and 2 minutes on all the deaths in Syria refugee crisis.
Agreed. Worse than that though. Everything, every movie and tv show must be cleared by the corporate puppet masters. If you watch old shows from years back, the content would not be allowed. Mork and Mindy I remember specifically having subject matter that would not fly today. It was fine back then to criticize things in a real way, and not just as a joke.Quote: beachbumbabsThe problem goes back decades, to when corporate entities were allowed to buy networks and their news organizations. Suddenly the news had to turn a profit, rather than just reporting without bias. So they started doing editorialized stories, thinly disguised promos as news, reporting from a pov instead of objectively. And it's escalated with competition to this point, but the fake news has largely been a matter of degree. It's not new, other than.the blatant making up of stories' kernel of truth this past.year of two.
This is simultaneously bad and overdue. Quo Vadis, though. Who's left.to be unbiased in dissecting disinformation?
Echo chamber Bob. It's not fair and balanced, it's a joke. When people buy into a politics angle, a view that biases every thought,they like it being reinforced. If you're hanging left or right, once you see another view, it all seems like hypnosis you're immune to and it makes you sick and irritated. It's not only Fox news, it's everything. I liked watching John Oliver, he made a lot of sense, but the Trump jabs got old.Quote: EvenBobMy experience is, people hate Fox because
it tells the truth more often than not, and
not because it's faux. The other news
networks are great at ignoring half the
news out there, like the size of Trump
rallies. When Obama ran in 08 that's
all you saw on CNN and MSNBC, the
huge crowds at rallies. It was crickets
on Trump drawing 15K or 25K, no
news there.
Quote: rxwineHardly. If their base audience saw too much criticism or focus on negative conservative stories they'd leave the station in droves.
LOL, whatever. You have no idea because
you never watch more than 5min a week,
if that. The big sin Fox commits is they
aren't in the tank for the Left. That makes
them unwatchable for half the country.
On CNN and Msnbc you can get your
Leftie nerves calmed, you can relax knowing
Trump doesn't have a chance and it's a
Hillary coronation.
Harry Reid is the big hero today. He rammed
a rule change thru the senate in 2013 that
lets cabinet members be approved by a simple
51% majority. He did it because he was 100%
sure of Hillary winning in 2016. So there's about
a zero chance of any of Trump's cabinet not
sailing thru. Thanks, Harry!
Quote: RonC
Please use major sources; not the alt.right or alt.left crap.
Sounds like you've already decided on some that you think the government should shut down.
Quote: RonCI'd like to see where the idea this makes us "Soviet America" comes from...
It comes from me. What else should one call the federalization of all media?
By the way, William Z Foster was also a co-founder of the ACLU.
Ok, sorry for the digression, back to the thread.
Quote: bobbartopSounds like you've already decided on some that you think the government should shut down.
No, not at all. I fear too much government involvement in anything, I'd just like to know what convinced you that this bill had anything to do with domestic media or any real media elsewhere. I don't see that; perhaps my view would change with different information.
The alt.right and alt.left thing is that they take one single kernel of truth or fact and turn it in to something that it is not. i see them all the time on FB and places like that; I mostly ignore anything that takes a hugely convoluted path to make an argument that is so far out there as to be ridiculous. I did see some of those on this particular story before I commented...none of them convinced me of anything close to this bill being an attack on our freedom of the press.
Quote: bobbartopIt comes from me. What else should one call the federalization of all media?
Again, show me how this bill federalizes the media. I just don't see it in what I've read.
Quote: RonCAgain, show me how this bill federalizes the media. I just don't see it in what I've read.
Don't ask him for sources. To bobbartop, the National Enquirer is a legitimate news source (seriously - he said that!). And NYT is "fake news."
I've learned to just ignore him and his nonsense. Can't believe people have spent the last 10 pages or so entertaining his conspiracy theories.
Quote: ams288Don't ask him for sources. To bobbartop, the National Enquirer is a legitimate news source (seriously - he said that!). And NYT is "fake news."
I've learned to just ignore him and his nonsense. Can't believe people have spent the last 10 pages or so entertaining his conspiracy theories.
Ouch, that hurt. Maybe you don't realize how sensitive I am.
I've wondered where you were lately. I thought you might be busy packing for your trip to #disruptj20. Bring a sweater. I read in the National Enquirer that it's going to be cold. brrrrrrr
Quote: bobbartopI've wondered where you were lately. I thought you might be busy packing for your trip to #disruptj20. Bring a sweater. I read in the National Enquirer that it's going to be cold. brrrrrrr
I was enjoying the holidays. I work from home, so I mainly post while working... time off for the holidays = not many posts from me.
I have no idea what #disruptj20 is.
Right, because you took the time to read the source material and consider it yourself. You're not relying on some conspiracy-theorist website -- whose revenue model is entirely based on ad clicks from sensationalist fake-news stories -- to do your thinking for you.Quote: RonCAgain, show me how this bill federalizes the media. I just don't see it in what I've read.
If everyone developed the ability to do that, not only would Trump never have been elected, but the working class wouldn't have fallen behind in the first place. Being taken advantage of requires two parties: the con artist and the mark. If there are no marks, the opportunities for con artists dry up. Of course, that's an unrealistic counterfactual because many people have neither the time nor ability to do the sort of investigation you just did for every decision they need to make. So we're stuck with herd mentality and mindless following.
Now consider that if the premise of democracy is that everyone makes an informed decision, but our social reality is mindless following by large herds of similarly-situated voters, then perhaps our present democracy isn't well-suited to our present society...
Quote: MathExtremistRight, because you took the time to read the source material and consider it yourself. You're not relying on some conspiracy-theorist website -- whose revenue model is entirely based on ad clicks from sensationalist fake-news stories -- to do your thinking for you.
Is "Democracy Now!" one of those? The same "Democracy Now!" that is broadcast on Pacifica Radio and NPR?
I seriously doubt if either one of you "read the source material". The text of the legislation is HUGE. Maybe Ron C did, but there is no way M.E. did, as usual he puts words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, like he had me "pegged" as a Trump supporter when I first posted here yet I had never said a word about Trump. In other words, M.E. doesn't know wtf he's talking about, while at the same time he knows everything.
So M.E., is "Democracy Now!" one of those fake conspiracy-theorist websites?
Quote: MathExtremistRight, because you took the time to read the source material and consider it yourself. You're not relying on some conspiracy-theorist website -- whose revenue model is entirely based on ad clicks from sensationalist fake-news stories -- to do your thinking for you.
If everyone developed the ability to do that, not only would Trump never have been elected, but the working class wouldn't have fallen behind in the first place. Being taken advantage of requires two parties: the con artist and the mark. If there are no marks, the opportunities for con artists dry up. Of course, that's an unrealistic counterfactual because many people have neither the time nor ability to do the sort of investigation you just did for every decision they need to make. So we're stuck with herd mentality and mindless following.
Now consider that if the premise of democracy is that everyone makes an informed decision, but our social reality is mindless following by large herds of similarly-situated voters, then perhaps our present democracy isn't well-suited to our present society...
It goes way further than just Trump not getting elected...he is obviously not the first, and won't be the last, to take advantage of uninformed voters. We can all kid ourselves and say that Hillary wanted only educated ones; that is not true. She'd have GLADLY taken every uninformed voter necessary to get to 270. Would Obama have been elected? Bush? Who knows how far you can take it.
The working class fell behind long before Trump. The lack of doing anything about it by those elected over the years led to his election, not "uninformed voters"... They are a symptom of the disease of career politicians on both sides.
Yes, both sides are stained. if they weren't, Trump would never have won.
On the other hand if this is some new trend in politics (god forbid) we are on horizon of Trumpism and it's a whole new thing.
Quote:The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
The psychological biases which blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event's massive role in historical affairs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Quote: RonC
It goes way further than just Trump not getting elected...he is obviously not the first, and won't be the last, to take advantage of uninformed voters. We can all kid ourselves and say that Hillary wanted only educated ones; that is not true. She'd have GLADLY taken every uninformed voter necessary to get to 270. Would Obama have been elected? Bush? Who knows how far you can take it.
The working class fell behind long before Trump. The lack of doing anything about it by those elected over the years led to his election, not "uninformed voters"... They are a symptom of the disease of career politicians on both sides.
Yes, both sides are stained. if they weren't, Trump would never have won.
The democrats have delivered everything their constituents must want. The problem has been that the republicans go along with them. It was essentially the pissed off republican voters who put Trump in. They were sick of the lying McConnells and McCains, etc. The democrat voters didn't have anything to be mad about. Their guys deliver.
Quote: bobbartopThe democrats have delivered everything their constituents must want. The problem has been that the republicans go along with them. It was essentially the pissed off republican voters who put Trump in. They were sick of the lying McConnells and McCains, etc. The democrat voters didn't have anything to be mad about. Their guys deliver.
I sort of half agree with this. My perception was, of the last 8 years, the Republicans put party ahead of country. There was a great jobs bill Obama offered about 5 years ago. They refused to consider it, even though it slashed federal spending by far more than it incentivized jobs. They shut the govt down twice and wrecked our credit rating . They voted against things they had proposed, just because Obama supported those things. Childish and harmful; I do not understand how so many of them kept their jobs in this "change" election.
Quote: beachbumbabsI sort of half agree with this. My perception was, of the last 8 years, the Republicans put party ahead of country. There was a great jobs bill Obama offered about 5 years ago. They refused to consider it, even though it slashed federal spending by far more than it incentivized jobs. They shut the govt down twice and wrecked our credit rating . They voted against things they had proposed, just because Obama supported those things. Childish and harmful; I do not understand how so many of them kept their jobs in this "change" election.
The Bush years were a disaster. If they had not been, it's quite possible Obama would not have got in in 2008, or any democrat for that matter. I would not vote for a Bush if you put a gun to my head. I knew the family's true colors back when Bush-1 was Reagan's running mate. I had done my homework at 24 years old. Hence, I did not vote for Reagan, basically because of Bush. Don't get me started about Grampa Bush, Prescott. This is one evil evil family. And when it looked like Jeb was a favorite for this round, I was beside myself. I thought, omg, a THIRD BUSH?!
This is why I take Fox News with a grain of salt. I, am a republican. But I have a good memory and I remember how the Fox crew treated GW Bush with kid gloves. Talk about fake news.
Also during the Bush years, you had Hannity, Limbaugh, Levine, etc., pretty much rubber stamping everything. They're all phonies.
Quote: RonCAgain, show me how this bill federalizes the media. I just don't see it in what I've read.
Here's part of it, I'm not going to cut and paste it all, it would fill up several pages of this forum.
This is from H.R. 5181, and there's a Senate counterpart.
I would call this "federalizing the media." And when they talk about supposed "foreign" sources of propaganda, what's to prevent them from applying that to domestic entities? They've done it with all this talk about Russia supposedly interfering with our election. Julian Assange claims all credit for the hacking. So who's to believe? Most people don't want to accept that there are parts of OUR government that might as well be the enemy, not just Russia, China, etc. It is politically naive to think that our guys are always the good guys. Really naive. I wish that were not true.
SEC. 3. Center for Information Analysis and Response.
(a) Establishment.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and other relevant departments and agencies, establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response (in this section referred to as the “Center”). The purposes of the Center are—
(1) to lead and coordinate the collection and analysis of information on foreign government information warfare efforts, including information provided by recipients of information access fund grants awarded under subsection (e) and other sources;
(2) to establish a framework for the integration of critical data and analysis on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into the development of national strategy; and
(3) to develop, plan, and synchronize, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and other relevant departments and agencies, whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests.
(b) Functions.—The Center shall carry out the following functions:
(1) Integrating interagency efforts to track and evaluate counterfactual narratives abroad that threaten the national security interests of the United States and United States allies.
(2) Collecting, integrating, and analyzing relevant information, including intelligence reporting, data, analysis, and analytics from United States Government agencies, allied nations, think-tanks, academic institutions, civil society groups, and other nongovernmental organizations.
(3) Developing and disseminating fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at United States allies and partners.
(4) Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States.
(5) Facilitating the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices.
(6) Identifying gaps in United States capabilities in areas relevant to the Center’s mission and recommending necessary enhancements or changes.
(7) Identifying the countries and populations most susceptible to foreign government propaganda and disinformation.
(8) Administering the information access fund established pursuant to subsection (e).
(9) Coordinating with allied and partner nations, particularly those frequently targeted by foreign disinformation operations, and international organizations and entities such as the NATO Center of Excellence on Strategic Communications, the European Endowment for Democracy, and the European External Action Service Task Force on Strategic Communications, in order to amplify the Center’s efforts and avoid duplication.
(c) Composition.—
(1) COORDINATOR.—The Secretary of State shall appoint a full-time Coordinator to lead the Center.
(2) STEERING COMMITTEE.—
(A) COMPOSITION.—The Secretary of State shall establish a Steering Committee composed of senior representatives of agencies relevant to the Center’s mission to provide advice to the Secretary on the operations and strategic orientation of the Center and to ensure adequate support for the Center. The Steering Committee shall include the officials set forth in subparagraph (C), one senior representative designated by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, and the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
So you're suggesting that when a law says "foreign" and "abroad," it super-secretly means "domestic" and "at home"? How Carrollian. "Impenetrability! That's what I say!"Quote: bobbartopHere's part of it, I'm not going to cut and paste it all, it would fill up several pages of this forum.
This is from H.R. 5181, and there's a Senate counterpart.
I would call this "federalizing the media." And when they talk about supposed "foreign" sources of propaganda, what's to prevent them from applying that to domestic entities?
Quote: H.R. 5181(3) to develop, plan, and synchronize, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and other relevant departments and agencies, whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests.
There's no question about it being an aberration. The real question is whether his presidency will be the kind of system shock we can recover from, or whether he'll prove to be an extinction-level event for our national government the way the Chicxulub meteor strike was for the dinosaurs. I'm hoping it's the former but a lot of that will depend on whether he starts any wars.Quote: rxwineI think Trump is a "black swan". (at least I hope so) If so, his election is an aberration from normal events.
Quote: MathExtremistSo you're suggesting that when a law says "foreign" and "abroad," it super-secretly means "domestic" and "at home"?
That is what I'm saying. You don't have to be a smart ass about it. And I mentioned a current example. The hacking of Hillary came right from this country, but they're lying and saying it is the Russians. So there y'go. "Foreign propaganda". And suddenly you are trusting of our government? I think you're just endlessly argumentative for the sake of being endlessly argumentative.
I asked you earlier about the "Democracy Now!" website. You got an answer to that, or are you going to conveniently dodge that?
Quote: bobbartopHere's part of it, I'm not going to cut and paste it all, it would fill up several pages of this forum.
To save space, I deleted the text...no need for it to be posted repeatedly.
I just don't see this as being directed at domestic entities. I also know that First Amendment protections would keep it from going in that direction. ANY law can potentially be misused, it is up to us to pay attention and make sure it doesn't happen.
*****
On another front, where is the proof that the hacking happened here and was not by any foreign entity and/or foreign actor?
