It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What Happens After?
page: 4share:
a reply to: putnam6
So, two comments...
1. My editorial statement was more about Wikipedia in general, not the specific section you cited. And, while we could go down a rabbit hole dissecting how some of that could have been worded better, I don't think that serves any point here. But do notice what is 'missing' from the Clinton article. See anything about the Steele dossier in there? As many pointed out in the "talk" sections, this wasn't relevant to the 2016 elections, and very technically speaking this is correct. But, the section on the Steel Dossier on wikipedia goes into great detail about the 2016 elections, as does Clinton's own wikipedia page, (and none of that was relevant to the 2016 elections either, but it's there) and none of those articles do anything but lay the Steel dossier at Trump's doorstep and remain pretty defensive on Hillary's involvement. So, it very much IS relevant to the 2016 election because it is a comparative example of similar activity, thus it should be included in the 2016 election section if they're going to talk about the alleged Trump interference. Secondly, it was not proven Trump had anything to do with the event, so why is it relevant or even okay to discuss Trump at all. THIS is the bias I am talking about. The wikipedia authors who wrote the last sentence you quoted had bleeding tongues being forced to write that disclaimer at the end. They didn't want to do it, and it was heavily debated and only very begrudgingly added after a lengthy NPOV debate. You can see it all in the "talk" section archives.
2. Yes, I do know you better than that, and this is exactly why I posted what I did. Regardless of our individual positions on political ideology, your point was to differentiate disputed elements of the 2016 vs. 2020 elections, was it not? None of the numerous wikipedia pages related to those two election portray an accurate framing of the events (on BOTH sides), and this was really my larger point about wikipedia just being a horrible source. It was not my intention to upset you. My intention was merely to opine people's reaction to wikipedia being used as a source. If anything, my intent was to bolster your argument, not diminish it, by encouraging using a better source, that's all.
Hopefully you can accept this explanation.
Cheers!
So, two comments...
1. My editorial statement was more about Wikipedia in general, not the specific section you cited. And, while we could go down a rabbit hole dissecting how some of that could have been worded better, I don't think that serves any point here. But do notice what is 'missing' from the Clinton article. See anything about the Steele dossier in there? As many pointed out in the "talk" sections, this wasn't relevant to the 2016 elections, and very technically speaking this is correct. But, the section on the Steel Dossier on wikipedia goes into great detail about the 2016 elections, as does Clinton's own wikipedia page, (and none of that was relevant to the 2016 elections either, but it's there) and none of those articles do anything but lay the Steel dossier at Trump's doorstep and remain pretty defensive on Hillary's involvement. So, it very much IS relevant to the 2016 election because it is a comparative example of similar activity, thus it should be included in the 2016 election section if they're going to talk about the alleged Trump interference. Secondly, it was not proven Trump had anything to do with the event, so why is it relevant or even okay to discuss Trump at all. THIS is the bias I am talking about. The wikipedia authors who wrote the last sentence you quoted had bleeding tongues being forced to write that disclaimer at the end. They didn't want to do it, and it was heavily debated and only very begrudgingly added after a lengthy NPOV debate. You can see it all in the "talk" section archives.
2. Yes, I do know you better than that, and this is exactly why I posted what I did. Regardless of our individual positions on political ideology, your point was to differentiate disputed elements of the 2016 vs. 2020 elections, was it not? None of the numerous wikipedia pages related to those two election portray an accurate framing of the events (on BOTH sides), and this was really my larger point about wikipedia just being a horrible source. It was not my intention to upset you. My intention was merely to opine people's reaction to wikipedia being used as a source. If anything, my intent was to bolster your argument, not diminish it, by encouraging using a better source, that's all.
Hopefully you can accept this explanation.
Cheers!
edit on 6/14/2024 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: TheTardis2
The USA divides itself into 6-7 different Statehoods .
I dont think you are completely off base here but I dhink it will be less than this. Texas and Oklahoma already have in their constitutions the ability to succeed and if I am right I think several other states added it not long ago. I think you will see a big chunk of the southern states stay as one very large nation. All of the necessary resources are already down here and this area by in large is a conservative stronghold. Although I honestly think if the majority of the nation voted we could just get rid of few major metropolitan areas and it would change the entire complexion of voting in this nation. If you removed LA, SF, Chi and NY from the equation the rest of the country is united. 4 cities control the balance of the nation.
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Lumenari
An easy answer is that there is not going to be a civil war again in America. ...
This is correct.
It's going to have to get a whole lot worse than this before it will come to any sort of armed conflict inside the borders of America, despite the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth to the contrary. Sadly, I think your projections are correct, and once it gets to that stage any sort of hope for turn around is non-existent.
edit - Plus, there is no central/common issue (other than government corruption). So, when viewed from that perspective, it wouldn't be a "civil war" anyway. It would really be more of a "coup d'é·tat" rather than a civil war.
If you look at it another way historically...
The USA implodes economically, the Federal government can't "fix" that, then we have no operational Federal government anymore.
Keep in mind, the plan was to disarm us, make us dependent on the Federal government and then offer a solution.
However, the collapse is going to happen before the solution can be offered or we can be disarmed.
It is interesting times, indeed.
new topics