> “Everybody is just a larger child,” Williams said, finishing his chocolate-chip pancakes.
I love these kids. Every step of the way they've figured out little hacks to get to the next checkpoint. PG once said that he was always interested in hacking politics, and as someone who's amusedly been watching the Gravel teens, I have a feeling they'll go pretty far.
>PG once said that he was always interested in hacking politics, and as someone who's amusedly been watching the Gravel teens, I have a feeling they'll go pretty far.
Hacking politics has already been done, and more successfully. If you are interested in seeing someone "hack" politics, then Trump's election has been the best case study by far.
Absolutely. Trump also serves as a case study of what kinds of safeguards exist within the American political system to prevent an incumbent president from really moving the needle. You cant go too far off script in the white house. You can be an embarrassing PR nightmare if you like, that's fine. So long as you keep supporting the institutions that have their grip on American democracy it's no problem.
Eisenhower called it the "military-industrial complex". He observed how lobbyists and Pentagon reptiles could lead Congress around by the nose, voters be damned. He didn't anticipate the ways in which journalism would be co-opted into the constant push for more war, always constantly more war. This was foolish of him, since the Spanish-American War during his childhood was also started by lies in the press. He also didn't mention the part the unsupervised services would play in destabilizing societies at home and abroad, although since the Mosaddegh coup was his doing I guess he probably didn't have to say a damn thing about that.
with his next breathe he ranted about how The Iran Deal was the worst deal he's ever seen, because he knows deals.
Trump is not a dedicated foe of The MIC.
They're doing completely typical Twitter shitposting, on Mike Gravel's verified account. It's a funny joke, but that's all it is. You could hand over the account to anyone on lefty irony Twitter and get the exact same results.
It's been somewhat disheartening to see people take this at all seriously, to think that Mike Gravel is going to even have anything useful to say at the debates. We all (well, maybe not the teens) remember Gravel from 2008. He's not about to blow anyone's mind.
Calling out the hypocrisy
of top-tier candidates like Biden or Harris with the same panache as in 2008, while advocating policies not considered ‘Practical’, is their explicit goal. Some people view the 2008 performance as brave truth-telling—how many of those serious, smooth-talking candidates voted for the Iraq War?
Speaking truth to power doesn’t always mean speaking truth to people with elected power.
> ... @MikeGravel had already established that Mike Gravel was not just an individual but also a kind of group project. Strangely enough, this had opened up a loophole that allowed him to talk like an actual person — and somehow it seemed as if this person mattered least. I found myself imagining a candidateless campaign — fronted by a hologram of George Washington, or “freedom,” or Apple ...
There's an old saying to the effect that:
1. FDR proved that a person can be president forever;
2. Nixon proved that anyone can become president; and
3. Regan proved that nobody need be president at all.
There's a case to be made that a good chunk of the current president's success stems from the fact that his administration/campaign appears to be so tightly controlled by the man himself. Like him or loathe him, with this president, what you see is what you get, and he has gone to the mat repeatedly to make good on his campaign promises no matter how misguided.
So the mental model of a presidential campaign being run by a bunch of kids wrapped in a trench coat is fascinating. As the article points out, the Gravel campaign's uniqueness stems from the fact of how open it is about this:
> In an online world where everything is understood to be a performance, @MikeGravel looks us squarely in the eye and admits, “Every politician is just a bunch of kids in a trench coat — so why not make them actual kids?”
It's also not outside the realm of technical feasibility that an AI could make a viable presidential candidate. Whether or not the necessary legislation would ever come to pass is another question, but I sometimes wonder whether this might be the ultimate legacy of Corporate Personhood:
Not saying he's been successful, but he has tried repeatedly.
I'm also trying to set aside whether I agree with these policies. Failure to do so is part of the reason so many Democrats have been so utterly ineffective against this president.
Oddly enough, the latest iteration (threatening new tariffs on Mexico) appears to have lead to a concession by Mexico to station 6,000 of its national guard units at the border to prevent emigration to the US.
I'd say this more than demonstrates that this president will take things to extremes few thought possible in an effort to make good on his campaign promises.
I even suspect a large number of Mexican national guard troop stationed at the border might even qualify as a "wall" that was "paid for" by Mexico. It also hints that further concessions by Mexico to fund a constructed wall might be forthcoming by making the same threat again.
> Oddly enough, the latest iteration (threatening new tariffs on Mexico) appears to have lead to a concession by Mexico to station 6,000 of its national guard units at the border to prevent emigration to the US.
Just for the record, Mexico were already doing all of those things.[0] Mexico didn't just form a National Guard over night; they were already planning to send 6,000 troops their southern border.
Mexico refused to accept that people fleeing should seek asylum in Mexico, if they enter it first. Which would have been pretty significant.
> It’s a incredibly partisan, biased source that blurs opinion into news.
We're living in a post-Thompsonian world. There's no difference anymore. The far left gets it, the right certainly gets it, it's the mainstream "liberal" J-school crowd who think there's still such a thing as objective reporting.
There’s no such thing as no bias, but there’s more than just left and right, and certainly sources that are upfront about their bias are more reputable than ones that try and act non-partisan.
There is “a difference”. Quality still exists outside bias, and that matters very much.
But yes, read far and wide these days so you can yourself understand the various world views and not be fooled into thinking the NYTimes or Politico are “centrist”.
You’re very wrong and if you think Politico doesn’t lean very far left you live in a bubble.
Here’s a direct refute showing them about the same polarization:
According to this The New York Times leans more to the left than Politico. So by your logic The New York Times should also be banned. I really have a hard time equating The New York Times with Breitbart.
Note: I never said anything about banning anything. Also, while this chart is probably more accurate than the other, I read Politico, NYTimes and many of the others here, and I'd personally rate them differently: NYTimes is fine, but Politico is further to the left of it.
But.. the sources used by that page put it on the "Lean Left" range, along with The Economist and The Washington Post, while Breitbart is put on the "Right", and much farther from the middle than Politico...
Go read the entire home page of the Politico right now and ask yourself if each article:
1. Benefits or takes the liberal side / attack’s the conservative side
2. Focuses on the issues that matter to liberals
I’d say Politico averages about 9/10 articles that answer yes to both, at least.
The difference from Breitbart is that Politico “dresses up” much nicer. Their tone is calm, the headlines seem objective. Their style is one of authority and objectivity, their content is entirely left leaning and oftentimes shamelessly so. I’m not left or right really, but it’s painfully obvious if you read from across the spectrum.
That they seem not as biased (and probably why they rate as only somewhat left leaning in many of these charts) is probably helped by that. To me, that they present that way is a negative not a positive.
You've revealed only your bias: I never stated or even hinted at being pro-Trump, but you have assumed so. I merely was pointing out a fact: Politico is heavily biased for/by the left. That is all.
Fun fact: Bloomberg also tends to publish more liberal opinion than contrary, which makes sense given Mr Bloomberg himself is a Democrat/Democratic candidate.
Further: pointing out a random article from a different website as some sort of proof, is a real great example of moving the goalposts. I never said a thing about Trump - you brought him in. I also never said anything about media having to preset both sides. I merely had one point, a true one, and it stands.
No, you've pointed out your bias. I didn't imply you approved of Trump. You stated that Politico's articles were biased towards liberals. I posted an article - from another news source because I couldn't find one on Politico's home page at that time that I felt would meet this criteria - I assumed you would consider biased towards liberals. That doesn't mean I think you agree or disagree with any particular politician.
I posted that to see whether or not you found it biased - do you or do you not?
Your point does not stand. It's ludicrous both siderism to conclude that Politico is on the same level as Breitbart. It's dangerous.
> I'm guessing you do - because it points out that Trump is lying.
First, I can only assume what you meant by your statement was this, rephrased: You think I'd find any negative reporting on Trump to be "biased", even if its a proven lie.
Can you see how uncharitable of a statement this is? If you can't, that's unfortunate for you, if so (and you chose to write it anyway), you've lost my respect.
Politico is a consistently far left-leaning site. Yes, Breitbart is slightly further on the other side, but the point stands. That Politico dresses up nice just makes more need to point it out. Breitbart isn't dangerous either, it's a populist and nationalist site that generally aligns with the current president's policies pretty well, ie, 48% of voters choice in 2016.
Gravel did some great stuff in the 70s but he's a bit of a kook now. He used to speak at Lyndon LaRouche conventions until very recently. I guess everyone needs to make a buck. I full support the Gravel Teens though.
Glad to see these teenagers. Promising to see such examples to remember that we often draw a wrong picture of Gen Z. Regardless of which side they are taking, the fact that they are doing it is great.
This shows that the Twitter verified accounts system/blue checkmarks are pretty worthless. Gravel may have handed his password over to the kids, but other “individual” accounts are run by multiple admins using Twitter’s built-in features, and some politicians have the disclaimer “tweets by me have my initials”.
Twitter should restrict verified individual accounts to a single user (the actual person who owns the account) and remove the check mark from people who violate those rules. There are also individual accounts that seem to be selling access to their followers by giving admin rights to others.
Accounts that have multiple admins should have this explicitly called out in the profile/name (“Office of XYZ”) , and which admin posted the Tweet needs to be made explicit.
It's not feasible for Twitter to evaluate what person actually typed the characters, and that isn't very relevant to the issue of knowing whether the message is something the person supports anyway. The check-mark means the account is verified to be owned by a certain person, and I think it's very useful to know whether an account is owned by a certain figure/politician. It's very useful to know that this account is making posts supported by Mike Gravel, and that these kids are not just people he's never met making posts under his name. Most popular politicians have a lot of popular parody accounts, and knowing whether you're looking at a message made by a campaign vs one made by someone parodying a campaign is valuable information. At the end of the day, if an account is making posts [verified person] does not support that person can either (a) change their password or (b) ask twitter to remove the verification. The blue checkmark then signifies the account is actually run by that person, regardless of who is typing the majority of the posts. It's a matter of common sense that it's possible for me and anyone else with an online account to give my password to someone else, and then that person could make posts with my account. What the check mark tells me is that no one has taken the account and locked the owner out of it, because if they did the person would have just told Twitter and the check mark would be gone.
That's not what it means, and I don't think any large number of people actually think that's what it means. It means the account is verified to be owned by X,
I beg to differ. Twitter accounts of individuals come across as a personal medium, not a mass propaganda outfit. I would be extremely surprised if a majority of users realized that an individual account with a blue checkmark was actually being run by a team.
As for sharing passwords: Twitter has to have mechanisms for detecting multiple logins to the same account.
Checkmarks verify that the post is not made by someone claiming to represent a person, who does not actually represent that person. It solves the issue of fake accounts, which is a very real problem. For politicians, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway whether they are the person physically typing the message. When a politician gives a speech, that speech will be written by a team of people working for the campaign. Even when answering questions at a town hall, the answers will just be talking points decided by the campaign, and I think that's common knowledge. Even if Twitter could verify 100% that a certain person typed the characters what would that get us? Gravel would just ask these kids what he should type, or they would send him the text directly. You could argue that this would at least guarantee he's seen the posts and that he therefore approves them, but don't we know that already? If he doesn't approve the posts he can either change his password or ask Twitter to remove the accounts verification.
We could also just designate a limited number of people as politicians’ voice, who speak for him. We could call this new job, I don’t know, “spokesperson”?
People on Twitter don’t expect spokespeople, they expect the actual person whose name is on the account. If they can’t be bothered to Tweet 280 characters on an issue personally, maybe they shouldn’t be Tweeting about it at all, or leave it to the “office of” or “campaign of” accounts.
I love these kids. Every step of the way they've figured out little hacks to get to the next checkpoint. PG once said that he was always interested in hacking politics, and as someone who's amusedly been watching the Gravel teens, I have a feeling they'll go pretty far.