One more, somewhat important, detail that's also very telling about where the US administration is heading.
Reuters and Associated Press were barred from Oval Office during this meeting, but a Russian state news agency TASS reporter was allowed - into the Oval Office.
Presumably one of the issues being discussed here, such as mitigating the effects of Russia's wildly successful manipulation campaigns that have resulted in both US policy and cultural shifts in favor of Russian interests. To skip some steps in this comment chain, and at risk of being presumptuous, pick an option from this technically-exhaustive list:
Do you believe that:
1. Russia has not engaged in misinformation-based influence campaigns targeting US citizens
2. Russia has engaged in such campaigns but to no tangible effect, and they therefore require no response
3. Russia's influence campaigns saw success, but not to the detriment of the US, and they therefore require no response
4. Russia's success harms US interests, but it would be hypocritical to actively respond given the US' past actions
5. Russia's success is tethered to cultural shifts, which are impermanent and therefore don't necessitate an active response
6. Russia's success can only be effectively countered by the gov't, so civilian attempts at helping are futile
7. None of the items above relate to the topic of discussion in this thread, i.e. this comment effectively strawman-ing
8. The above points are non-exhaustive
I'm quite sure an intelligent person with an open mind can be convinced that each of the above points is false, save the last one.
Okay, a video attributing fault of the UA crisis to the West. Which of the options I listed are you attempting to back with this source, or put another way, which of my implied claims does this counter? Help me see the relevance.
If we rewind the comment chain back to the root, and just consider this video in the context of today's meeting - can you explain how the points made by the video or the general attribution of fault for the crisis lends support to the strategy and conduct displayed earlier today?
If you want to talk about whether or not the US is at fault for the war, you're in the wrong thread.
I 100% agree. I am also deeply dissatisfied with the state of diplomacy. I also think these negotiations should be handled by a strong and independent Europe.
Regardless of who is pulling the strings, they should be negotiating and ending conflict, like in the Minsk agreements, which were torn down by the west. In fact, Angela Merkel herself stated in 2022 that the 2014 peace agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time to militarize and eventually join NATO.
To follow your line of questioning, which I do appreciate, It would be that Russia has engaged in influence campaigns in the West, of course, but that we do that the West does this as a matter of course worldwide and our schemes are much more elaborate, anyway.
I also agree about in 5, Russia is convieniently riding a wave of populist conservatism which Putin (cynically, corruption-based, or otherwise) aligned with the Orthodox alignment in Russia. (Men/Women are different, global woke policy, SDG development goals etc) Many working class people are sick to death of effete urbane progressive politics (doesn't even really benefit any core economics) I would say this is a bigger propaganda play from Russia = Give sympathetic activists ammunition for cultural victories (that were fragile and brainless Western ideas anyway.)
The problem with this granular obsession of a deep Russia conspiracy inside the US is that you aren't even really aware about what the propaganda they are saying on their side and not really cogniscent that Western foreign policies engage in pretty ugly propaganda, unlawful killings as a matter business.
Russia propaganda is simply more advanced version of the type of propaganda we were doing anyway. It's just that you don't see your own side as capable of misinformation, influence peddling worldwide and they are guilty of it.
EUROMAIDAN was a Western intelligence op — and you worry about what; a few scary Facebook ads? Is there a particular piece of misinfo on RT you are concerned about?
Look into contemporary funding and actions by USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, many NGOs and media organisations. It's pretty blatant and now starting to be documented by our own media:
You want some kind of press release where the US state department announced it as a “coup”?
Are you even slightly familiar with US foreign policy in the world? Do you know about what happened in Kosovo/Yugoslavia? Or the Middle East, South America history? Do you know the typical function of US foreign policy arm is to orchestrate regime change?
You really are a special kind of midwit if you can’t see that by now.
From a quick (and shallow) skim of the thread, I gather that you're representing a minority viewpoint—inevitably so, because this forum is majority Western and naturally reflects the Western point of view. When commenters find themselves in a minority/contrarian position on the internet, they often resort to name-calling and other barbs. It's understandable as a response to pressure, but it's not ok to do that here. We can't apply the rules differently depending on such factors.
At the same time, it's in HN's interest to have contrarian views represented, as long as people do it while respecting the site guidelines. So when I run across an example like this, I often try to make this argument in the hope of persuading the person in your position! It doesn't usually work, but one can hope.
It's also in your own interests to follow the rules, because when you break them, you discredit whatever truth you may be arguing for. That doesn't help you or anyone else, and majorities are always looking for an easy excuse to dismiss minorities. (I'm not talking about the current topic here; I believe all majorities do this.)
I think there's a large portion (let's call it 22.47%... aka the percentage that voted for Kamala) know exactly what's going on, care a ton, and lost the election.
And then there's a large percentage for whom this whole thing just feels futile. It's not that they don't care, but they dislike Trump and feel like Democrats are unable/unwilling to rise to the occasion. (After all, 4 years later, Democrats just fired up the republican base and did nothing to protect Americans)
> (let's call it 22.47%... aka the percentage that voted for Kamala) know exactly what's going on
I thought like this but I've come to realize that a lot of Harris voters were suffering from illusions about the likely efficacy of the government she would form. Regardless of her own competence, the democratic party has serious issues, and not many Harris supporters were being honest (if they were aware) about this until well after they lost the election.
I think it's dangerous to think her voters know what's really going on. The issues are genuinely country-wide and not specific only to republicans.
More level-headed republicans are right about a lot of problems in the USA. They want government efficiency for good reasons. Is DOGE the right solution? Absolutely not, it's insane. But these people are happy to see certain initiatives because they're overdue, and they're not wrong about that. Free speech for example; that has become a bit more dodgy over the years. The western world is beginning to press on freedom of speech in subtle ways (especially in the UK), and a lot of republicans care (they should!) but virtually no democrats I know care.
I know the current administration (or X.com) is implementing the worst versions of these things, I don't support it at all, but my point is: there is good sense on both sides, yet also total nonsense on both sides.
I've read that too. Do we seriously believe that a random person can get into the Oval Office, for one of the most important high level meeting of the past years ?
I know they said that, but, really? Since when does an unauthorized person get access to the Oval Office? That would be a huge fail by the Secret Service.
Yeah, it's definitely a head-scratcher. I wonder how often unapproved people make it in. Seems like a major security risk to have someone unapproved in the room with that many high-level government leaders from multiple countries.
I'm wondering if they were given a pass by another approved news agency or something along those lines.
It's getting to be about time for pitchforks and torches in front of the offices and homes of your elected Senate and House representatives demanding they exercise their constitutional duty of checks and balances against the executive.
At the very least send letters, make phone calls. Let them know if they don't stand up to a dictator they've lost your vote.
Comment on all of the elected Democrats' posts "oh no repulicans just did this!" and let them know that whining isn't leading and they need to shut up and do something.
I'm encouraging every Democrat to register as a Republican, vote for the most centrist candidates in the next primary, and if they win, vote for any Republican that has an independent thought over a Democrat who knows nothing but how to sit around uselessly and complain.
And when the revolution comes, the first people who should get the most blame are those who chose not to use the power they had to do anything about it.
People abroad don't realize, the average American person is completely powerless.
Yes, we may lament the troubles that the current administration is causing for our allies, (or, I guess, former allies) abroad, but there's next to nothing we can do about it.
Again, buyer's remorse is all we can muster right now and it doesn't do anyone any good. At this point, we have no choice but to search for what positives we can work with that come out of the current administration, and just live with the consequences of the rest.
Young people often feel powerless today indeed, not only in the US but in most parts of the West.
One of the reason is that they never had to go through really tough times - as a country. We're living in times of prosperity and stability pretty much all of our lives. And we take it for granted. It's not !
But the thing is, that people do have power. Start calling your representatives, take it to the streets. All of you. If the 50% of voters that voted for Harris show up on the streets protesting, things will change. Take real action.
If the 50% of people voting for Harris show up, that would be maybe 30% of the US. Probably, not, but I feel like being generous. And that's assuming they all show up. Which we both know they won't.
I think people severely underestimate the level of apathy out in society right now. Until things affect them, they likely aren't gonna be terribly interested.
What about all that talk about the second amendment and it being an essential right to fight an oppressive government? Aren’t the “good guys with guns” supposed to be keeping the government in check?
The second amendment was put in place very explicitly as the final check against a despotic overthrow of the Constitution. Realize we're at the very brink and prepare yourself for a revolution. And stop fooling yourself into thinking things can't be that bad.
I said final resort. We’re not there but we’re closer than we’ve ever been in hundreds of years of republic. A responsible citizen has to start thinking. It’s not a last resort that should be taken lightly.
The thing about the second amendment is that if only the side in power believes in it and is willing to uphold it, then you don't really have a right to bear arms, you have a right to oppress the citizenry with violence.
There won't be a revolution, who do you think the gun owners all voted for? As long as Trump doesn't touch their guns, they aren't going to do a damned thing.
I think you're missing the point of what was meant by "prepare for revolution", and confusing the folks who are vocal with their political views and those who aren't.
Yes, options are to have some number(potentially insignificant compared to deaths caused by obesity or overdoses for example) mass shootings or kiss the feet of the dictator.
Maybe you didn't read the part where I said we don't care?
We, as a people, don't care. We don't even care about the problems we have. It's not gonna be easy to make us care about the problem some other people have.
I find this sort of suggestion to be 100% reminiscent from Ship of Fools, or to be slightly more charitable and work-safe, the protestors in the lemonade episode of Boondocks. The captain is nuts, Jasmine is almost a slave, and you're going to protest?
There are plenty of us who are awake. But lots of the voting public wanted this man in office. And they are getting what they wanted, apparently, b/c he was clear about who he is and what he was going to do.
We'll have at least two years of this. One can hope 2026 will see a massive tide turn in congress and the Senate and maybe Trump will be impeached. But, it doesn't seem likely, and even if it happened, they can't impeach his entire administration so not sure how much can really change until 2028.
> b/c he was clear about who he is and what he was going to do.
This was a much needed change; because it was insane having a dementia patient as a president. I dont mean that hyperbolically; the democratic party was ready to have him serve another 4 years when he couldnt hold his train of thought on the debate stage. The democratic party needs to explain why his mental condition was swept under the rug at the expense of the American people.
You posted this 24 times. That's abusive. Please stop now.
Also, we ban accounts that cross into name-calling and personal attack, so please stop that too, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are.
Out of curiosity, why is posting the same link repeatedly abusive? This is a long discussion, and I can see some particular information being relevant in many different conversations that are taking place here. In a discussion with only a few comments it would be easy to scan the entire list of comments for interesting information. But I feel like in such a large discussion where everything is drowned out, sharing the same link repeatedly in different places (if relevant to each of those sub discussions) isn’t so bad?
In addition to what pvg (correctly) said, there's a big difference between carrying on a nuanced conversation, where you're connecting specifically to what other commenters are saying, vs. spraying the same material rapidly through a thread.
Because repetition is boring and the goal is interesting conversation rather than ensuring you don’t miss an interesting link. The interesting links are supposed to be a side effect of you engaging in or simply reading an interesting conversation. Summary comments, LLM output and prepared linkathons are discouraged for similar reasons, if the parallel helps at all.
Do you have any examples of “Summary comments, LLM output and prepared linkathons”? I’m not sure what a prepared linkathon is at all, and I wonder if the other two are as bad as you suggest, and maybe seeing it would help.
by "prepared linkathon" I mean specifically what that commenter was doing - you have a pre-made reply of N (for N >= 1) links that you keep spraying everywhere.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "as bad as you suggest". I wasn't suggesting a level of badness, more describing HN's messageboard goals, however aspirational.
Edit: and since we're exchanging questions, I'm curious what sorts of human interactions do you have in mind in which repeating the same thing 20-odd times is not considered, if not outright abusive, at least impolite and non-constructive. I can think of a couple - say, sports events or protests. But none of these map to 'nerd messageboard' in any meaningful way I can see.
Frankly what's worse is seeing such a magnitude of evidence to the contrary of popular discourse, yet being entirely unable to help bring context into the fray.
Instead, we get regurgitation of tired propaganda and heavily misleading narratives. If the world looks exceptionally confusing and chaotic, or if the world is fully of irrational boogeymen, that's just because you don't have the right perspective yet.
The geopolitics community knows the situation well, and doesn't look at Trump as a big scary orange man. They look at Trump as another American elite, who's been elected during a chaotic time in American society. You can also look up Jeffery Sachs (social democrat) who speaks at length about these issues.
I've mostly lost faith in the conversations on here. HN mostly is a competition about who can sound the most fancy. The actual content of the discussion has become tertiary. At this point, my only goal is to reach out to those who are open minded and haven't heard these other perspectives. To hell with internet points.
Well, that's an argument and you certainly can and should make it in response to whoever you are hoping to convince somewhere in the thread. Pasting the same URL at people is not 'discourse' or conversation, it's sloganeering. You can't do that while also decrying "regurgitation".
Reuters and Associated Press were barred from Oval Office during this meeting, but a Russian state news agency TASS reporter was allowed - into the Oval Office.
Wake up America before it's too late.