A Deeply Fractured US

[RangerRay]

Raise your hand if you’re surprised…

China’s Advancing Efforts to Influence the U.S. Election Raise Alarms

China has adopted some of the same misinformation tactics that Russia used ahead of the 2016 election, researchers and government officials say.

www.nytimes.com

 

[dapaterson]

Not surprising, and not to be blamed on anyone but the malign state actors involved. I fully expect Russia’s playing this crap too, likely Iran and a few other adversary states. It’s low cost and gives a decent return on stoking unrest.

As long as they aren't claiming to be releasing wolves into Nova Scotia.

 

[KevinB]

When your enemies signal who they want you to vote for it should give you an idea of who they consider the most likely to weaken your own country.

If only more Republicans realized that.

 

[dimsum]

If only more Republicans realized that.

I think the “I’d rather be Russian than Democrat” shirt was pretty fitting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1026150926271143936

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So Russia, Russia, Russia is being replaced by China, China, China?

 

[FJAG]

So Russia, Russia, Russia is being replaced by China, China, China?

Nope. It's actually Russia, China, Russia, China, Russia, China for quite some time. (See page 50 of SSE from 2017.)

 

[brihard]

So Russia, Russia, Russia is being replaced by China, China, China?

We’ve all been taking about foreign actor interference on this site for many years. Are we suddenly pretending that it’s a probability that adversary states will meddle in everything but American democracy and social cohesion? Because that’s patently absurd. Foreign meddling has been well documented for ages. You yourself bring it up regularly in the Canadian context, and have speculated that China literally affected the integrity and results of our last election. Obviously they and others are playing those games in the US too.

 

[Weinie]

A helping hand.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1771928327877492898

 

[brihard]

A helping hand.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1771928327877492898

Zero chance this turns into someone getting shot over a rent dispute.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We’ve all been taking about foreign actor interference on this site for many years. Are we suddenly pretending that it’s a probability that adversary states will meddle in everything but American democracy and social cohesion? Because that’s patently absurd. Foreign meddling has been well documented for ages. You yourself bring it up regularly in the Canadian context, and have speculated that China literally affected the integrity and results of our last election. Obviously they and others are playing those games in the US too.

Actually, I was wondering when you all were going to change your anti Trump narrative from him working with the Russians to him working for the ChiComs.

That is why my post was a question, not a statement. Perhaps you missed that in your zeal to lecture again.

I've never had any doubt that foreign actors meddle in our (and the US) elections and our parliament. Especially since and including the 2015 election. As well as Hunter and Joe's Most Excellent Chinese Business Ventures.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nope. It's actually Russia, China, Russia, China, Russia, China for quite some time. (See page 50 of SSE from 2017.)

See my response above.

 

[dimsum]

Actually, I was wondering when you all were going to change your anti Trump narrative from him working with the Russians to him working for the ChiComs.

Why not both? Throw in the Saudis too for kicks.

 

[TacticalTea]

Zero chance this turns into someone getting shot over a rent dispute.

Nah.

The law doesn't apply to previously legal renters.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If only more Republicans realized that.

Six weeks ago, Putin claimed Biden would be better for Russia's interests than Trump. Gosh, what does that mean?

 

[brihard]

Actually, I was wondering when you all were going to change your anti Trump narrative from him working with the Russians to him working for the ChiComs.

That is why my post was a question, not a statement. Perhaps you missed that in your zeal to lecture again.

I've never had any doubt that foreign actors meddle in our (and the US) elections and our parliament. Especially since and including the 2015 election. As well as Hunter and Joe's Most Excellent Chinese Business Ventures.

Then go back to my reply to that where I explicitly said nobody is to blame for this except for the malign foreign actors. I was very clear on that. Foreign influence fuckery is the fault of those foreign adversaries. Clear enough?

Given that you have no doubt that foreign actors meddle in US elections, why are you now taking exception to it being pointed out? Is it because Trump, by association, may be caught in the beaten zone? Your position is inconsistent.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Then go back to my reply to that where I explicitly said nobody is to blame for this except for the malign foreign actors. I was very clear on that. Foreign influence fuckery is the fault of those foreign adversaries. Clear enough?

Given that you have no doubt that foreign actors meddle in US elections, why are you now taking exception to it being pointed out? Is it because Trump, by association, may be caught in the beaten zone? Your position is inconsistent.

You're a riot. You can't call it inconsistent unless your two previous questions are answered, to give you a basis for your allegation.

 

[brihard]

You're a riot. You can't call it inconsistent unless your two previous questions are answered, to give you a basis for your allegation.

I can and I did. You reflexively attack Trump’s detractors; it’s basically one of your dominant traits at this point. A post was made about how China is interfering in America’s democracy. Someone else notes that they seem to be pushing Trump as their favourite (which makes sense). You took exception to that, and you starting jawing on about the ‘Russia Russia Russia is now China China China’, suggesting you (in this situation) might be inclined to see allegations Chinese interference as a hoax, because it reflects poorly upon your preferred candidate. Alternatively, you might deny that he’s a beneficiary of foreign interference at all. You get called on that; your own oft-repeated position on Chinese interference gets pointed out, and now you’re taking offence.

Please point out which specific part of this is factually inaccurate.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I can and I did. You reflexively attack Trump’s detractors; it’s basically one of your dominant traits at this point. A post was made about how China is interfering in America’s democracy. Someone else notes that they seem to be pushing Trump as their favourite (which makes sense). You took exception to that, and you starting jawing on about the ‘Russia Russia Russia is now China China China’, suggesting you (in this situation) might be inclined to see allegations Chinese interference as a hoax, because it reflects poorly upon your preferred candidate. Alternatively, you might deny that he’s a beneficiary of foreign interference at all. You get called on that; your own oft-repeated position on Chinese interference gets pointed out, and now you’re taking offence.

Please point out which specific part of this is factually inaccurate.

Nope. You're wrong. But keep shoving your fantasies.

Goose and gander. You say I reflexively attack Trump’s detractors. All the while you and other here reflexively attack Trump supporters. Clearly, you don't see yourself in the mirror.

How do you put it? Have a good rest of your evening. I tire of your attempts to tell me what I think, what's in my mind and putting words in my mouth.

L8r

 

[brihard]

Nope. You're wrong. But keep shoving your fantasies.

Goose and gander. You say I reflexively attack Trump’s detractors. All the while you and other here reflexively attack Trump supporters. Clearly, you don't see yourself in the mirror.

How do you put it? Have a good rest of your evening. I tire of your attempts to tell me what I think, what's in my mind and putting words in my mouth.

L8r

I’ll ask again because you’re dodging the question. What part of what I said is inaccurate?

 

[brihard]

Come on. Adding nearly a billion in value after a one day debut... you can't agree that is doing well?

The article was dated yesterday. That can be a lifetime in the market.

This is what the NASDAQ looks like today for "DJT"

View attachment 84097

The test isn't what it's worth yesterday or today or even tomorrow, but what it will look like in 30 days or 60 (when the short sellers will likely see if their gamble paid off) or 180 when he can cash in. How do you value a company that doesn't produce anything but hot air? And even in the "hot air" space it is the bottom of the barrel with its competition measuring visits in double digit billions while it scrapes by on single digit millions.

Just circling back on this one because it’s timely: Trump Media Group had some pretty ugly financials released today, and the stock completely shit itself, down 21% to close at $48.66, and has dropped further in after hours trading. That billion dollars in value gain is gone.

As a few of us said: don’t get too hot and heavy to sing a stock’s praises fresh out of IPO. Give it time to revert to what its fundamentals support. Trump as a brand will only be worth so much when people have to actually pay to have skin in the game.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trumps-media-company-falls-after-raising-going-concern-doubts-2024-04-01/