First, I wouldn’t say it is simple—there are not too many people who could be a politician—just that it doesn’t require any sort of life experience. I agree with Arthur Miller that a politician is a glorified actor. He needs to be able to speak in front of crowds, to the press, to constituents. He needs to read speeches and engage in the pomp of diplomacy, often on stages and in front of cameras. I don’t think that it is simple, only that it is often a form of fakery. I think Bernie, though, walks the line between genuine and fakery.

I think it depends on the president and what her voters expect of her. One can delegate her duties to an entire army of unelected bureaucrats and advisors or she can attempt to do the work herself.

Another part of the effect relates to derailing - or controlling the conversation - making claims that lure people into responding and thus increasing the "broadcast strength"of the original message if the responses explicitly correct it and react to it rather than providing their own narrative. Even if everyone who responds to it disagrees with it. The "lure" works by exposing skeptical or hitherto unexposed people to a claim, or a framing context for a claim, in a situation of heated debate; so when you just "skim over it", you see good points from both sides, but one person (like @NOS4A2) is controlling the flow of conversation - what topics get brought up in what way, and what easy refutations there are for them.

I’ll respond to this because you invoked my name. I just want to note the magical thinking involved in the idea of “controlling the conversation” on a platform such as this or other social media. I believe, insofar as my comment-style differs from anyone else’s, that I am just one example of people losing control of the conversation—a form of control they mistakenly believed they had but was proven to be illusory with the mere insertion of an opposing opinion.

Well if I think about what a troll is doing here, of all places, my conclusion is this: The philosophy forum probably ranks fairly highly on google searches for philosophy, in general. It has a pretty large and active thread named "Donald Trump". So someone looking up something concerning Donald Trump, and maybe the word "philosophy" might end up here. And since almost everyone here is highly critical of Trump, they'd normally find a fairly undivided message: A bunch criticizing Trump and his decisions, and noting possible negative consequences etc.

Now, with our vampiric friend, what they'd instead find is a lively "debate", where every post critical of Trump is followed by a Trump talking point. If someone is already inclined towards a certain position, they can now pick and choose whatever they like. And if someone is inclined to doubt this story or that, they can find confirmation.

A lot of ignorant guesswork has led to your equally ignorant conclusions.

I did indeed search in google for a philosophy forum. I did not search for “Donald Trump”. The Donald Trump thread was fairly active so it showed up in the feed on the front page. As a fan, I checked it out, and the consensus on there appeared to be a mishmash of conspiracy theory, group think and hatred—a toxic environment for discourse. Of course, none of these people were accused of being trolls or disinfo agents, even if every prediction they made has only led to disappointment. So I started sharing an opposing view, and was naturally met with opposition and hostility.

My relatively high comment count is only exceeded by my mentions. In other words, most of my comments are replies to people who @ me. I get the notifications in my email. I don’t comment to “sow division” or some equally absurd conspiracy theory; I largely comment to keep up a conversation.

That’s the extent of my trolling career.

Two welcome changes have occurred over the last couple weeks. Trump appointed Richard Grenell as Acting Director of National Intelligence, and Kash Patel as advisor to Grenell. According to CBS, a source told them that their mandate was to “clean house” in the ODNI, which in a matter of decades has become a sclerotic and bureaucratic tumor in government.

These changes are welcome because the recent fibs regarding Russian meddling has become de rigueur in the intelligence community. Maybe those who are not spellbound by russiaphobia can course-correct.

What you described might be best defined as the machinery of ideology. These mechanisms and systems essentially run on autopilot regardless of the individuals keeping it running. Many of them have been in place before you or I were born and will likely persist for generations to come, with slight variation.

When we are born into it we must, as a matter of self-preservation, learn to deal with the systems and machinery around us.

is a mischaracterisation. Why don't you prove this is the case with your apparent in depth understanding of what senators do, which level of knowledge you expect from others?

Was Bernie an activist? Yes. Is Bernie a Senator? Yes. How is that a mischaracterization?

I don't think you have a very good grasp on what politicians do all day...

You understand the day-to-day of a US senator? I’d love to hear about it if you wish to correct me.

Only in politics do we suggest extensive experience doing the job somehow makes you less able to do the job than someone with no experience.

Well... Maybe the same prejudice happens with teachers, too.

A little activism, a little voting in the senate. He certainly has enough experience making a living off the tax-payer dollar, but not much else.

Would rather a construction worker than another lawyer.

All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? We’re going to put a man like that in charge of the world’s greatest economy and military. That’s something people will have to contend with.

For starters, someone who’s willing to fight for their country rather than whine about bone spurs. Someone who is actually self-made and didn’t inherit almost half a billion.

Bone spurs. That’s all you got, eh? We used to call this grasping at straws, but given the element of hatred impelling it, it’s little more than the bluster of a hater.

Your unrelenting defense of Trump proves this to be false.

Not a strand of chewing gum can connect that premise to your conclusion.

Someone who whines about bone spurs, the fake news media, etc etc, doesn’t ring macho to me.

I don’t even want to know what you think is macho.

In more Trump news, it appears the claims of Russian interference were “overstated”.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/intelligence-briefer-russian-interference-trump-sanders/index.html

The US intelligence community's top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.

The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump, the officials said.

"The intelligence doesn't say that," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker."

What national security adviser Robert O'Brien is saying about Russia briefing 'conflicts' with what lawmakers were told Pierson's characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.

One intelligence official said that Pierson's characterization of the intelligence was "misleading" and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the "nuance" needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.

I doubt true believers such as John Brennan and the DNC will walk back their statements.

I believe your judgement of character is lacking in exactly the places you lack character. Personally I don’t look to politicians for moral guidance. I don’t want a pope, I just want an elected official to do his job.

Reminds me of Billy Graham rallies. The US is having trouble ripping off India in trade talks, so they wheel out the populism to twist the arms of the negotiators.

They played Macho Man by the Village People when Trump entered the stadium. That doesn’t ring “Billy Graham” to me.

I would not regard Barrack Hussein or Trump as my father. And certainly not the murderous warmongering hag Hillary CLinton. What do you mean?

Not as a father but as a father-figure, someone to look up to and treat like a father. I’m not saying this is true of everyone. I personally see the president as a man doing a job.

Because leisure is secondary to taking care of one’s responsibilities and duty to provide for himself and his family.

In the beginning of Trump’s administration a number of activist judges blocked Trump’s policies with nation-wide injunctions. In other words some Obama-appointed judge in California could override the policies of the elected president of the country, at least until the issue was taken to the Supreme Court. So hopefully with the new appointments that kind of judicial activism and political interest is excised from the system altogether.

Wow, what a crowd.

Which is great, really, the kind of measures that Facebook and Twitter took against ISIS were extremely effective at neutering their penetration in their platforms. The companies which own social media are in an extremely privileged place of control regarding information exposure, which affords them a great opportunity to cut the influence of organised disinformation and propaganda.

I think it’s a bad idea to have any sort of centralized curation of information, let alone some committee of experts or commissars picking and choosing what info we are allowed to see. It reeks to me of state-sanctioned truth and censorship when a government threatens Facebook or Twitter to do more to tackle misinformation.

An unregulated social media leads to the distortion of truth (propaganda, misinformation), sure, but the regulation of information leads to the distortion of truth and it’s suppression. So I’d err on the side of an unregulated social media because suppression is absolute and mere distortion can always be rectified through democratic means. The freedom to access and impart information is too precious to hand over to some Silicon Valley pencil neck or unelected bureaucrat.

I’ve never seen it before in my life. Where did you find it?

Actually, Nosfertau, there is tons of evidence. You have 2,5k posts, and each and every one of them is a piece of evidence for you character and intentions.

See what I mean? Your evidence is my post count.

Anyway, if you aren't a Russian troll, you're basically doing the same kind of work.

You’re one of many self-proclaimed philosophers on this forum who believe I am a Russian troll without evidence. That’s how easy it is to adopt a lie and use it as a basis in your thought process. No resource will protect you from that kind of credulity.

You’re useful to those who would try to seize control of social media. It’s the same game plan China used to censor the internet no more than a decade ago.

I've been searching for "how to identify a Russian troll."

You fit the bill. You intentionally put up false information, which is line with Russia's historic goal of just deluging the internet with false stories in order to create a kind of fog. It becomes harder to identify the truth.

This is info from Time magazine.

All it takes is one useful idiot to spread misinformation, as you’re doing now. The difference is I don’t need any resource beyond simple reason to teach me what’s true or false.

The “Russian misinformation” canard is itself misinformation. Have you ever seen a single piece of Russian misinformation? Worse, this canard is being used to justify seizing control of social media.

Too often the president is regarded as a father-figure. The standards we hold for them are inhuman, appropriate for popes and saints, but not the average man. That’s why so much of politics is acting. In that sense he is an overrated figure.

When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.

In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.

Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’

I’m against state TV as a matter of principle, but I also think people should be careful when ridding themselves of long-standing institutions. The PC stuff is dreadful and decadent, but I don’t think it’s enough to drop funding for the BBC.

It's not a scenario but an analogy. Did the risk increase or not?

It’s not analogous, though. But no a crosshairs in a logo did not increase the risk.
Can you name one case of anyone being incited to violence by an image of a crosshairs?

Looks like the Putin bogeyman is back in play, wants Sanders to win Dem primary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html


First rule of Russian interference: it’s always someone the DNC wants to destroy: sanders, Trump, Stein, Gabbard.

Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol.

Boot-edge-edge.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/buttigieg-2020-president.html

With what? Russian interference has never gone away.

With the selective leaking. Schiff receives a classified intelligence brief and immediately leaks it to the NYT — a federal crime. I suspect the Russian hoax true believers will be quick to point their fingers.

Sorry, but she’s an idiot. She saw it as a threat, or worse, pretended she did and used that to justify silencing Stone's criticism.

"Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there's nothing ambiguous about crosshairs."

In the US the test for incitement to violence (and the limits of free speech) is that it must produce, or is likely to produce, "immanent lawless action".

Your little scenario is ridiculous. Name one person in the history of the world who was incited to hurt someone after seeing a crosshair on their picture, let alone a crosshair in a logo. You, like the judge, are dealing in fantasy.

Exactly. And between het full gag order and the post it was proved the US is full of idiots, which Stone (considering his profession) knew or should've known, hence it was entirely rational.

Not a single person took Stone’s post as an incitement to violence but those who thought he put a crosshairs above her head, including the judge. They are idiots, and they prove they have “worse judgement” than anyone else.

Seriously? Stone posts a picture. Then a lot of people interpret it as a threat. The judge concludes after that media fallout that someone with worse judgment could take action because of it and she thinks Stone should've known better. This is entirely reasonable.

Or are you know pretending only people on the left could've interpreted it this way because that would be patently ridiculous.

I never said anything about “the left”. I said only an idiot would interpret it as a threat.

Here we go again.

Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats [Schiff] Will Exploit Its Support

There is no transcript yet, but:

Jackson noted Stone threatened her personally during the trial and stirred up claims that the process was rigged. Doing so, she said, “willfully increased the risk that someone with even poorer judgment than” Stone would take action and put the entire courthouse in danger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/roger-stone-sentence-due-thursday-in-federal-court/2020/02/19/2e01bfc8-4c38-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

She’s an idiot.

Stone deleted that picture and reposted it without the crosshairs and then deleted that too. I can't find where the judge stated she saw it as a threat. She did think it gave her reason to review the limited gag order that was in place. And that isn't so weird if you have such a dust storm of reactions to a post by him as you want to avoid jurors are influenced.

She states it here in her ruling on Stone's gag order.

The defendant himself told me he had more than one to choose from. And so what he chose, particularly when paired with the sorts of incendiary comments included in the text, the comments that not only can lead to disrespect for the judiciary, but threats on the judiciary, the post had a more sinister message. As a man who, according to his own account, has made communication his forté, his raison d'être, his life's work, Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there's nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5746249/Transcript-Instagram-Post-Leads-ABJ-to-Broaden.pdf

It's hard for me to believe that the criticism of her in the post had zero bearing on her decision to silence Stone.