monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

If Putin had a sex tape on Hillary peeing in a bed with prostitutes, and if he had pushed for her election as hard as he pushed Trump, I'm pretty sure that the repukes would be absolutely okay with it and wouldn't even THINK of investigating the issue. Because they are not interested in digging **** about their political opponents. They are better than that... :-î

It's immoral to repeat extremely damaging allegations against someone with no evidence that they're true.

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Like lying about Obama's birth certificate for years? Was that immoral?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

That was the basis of the Trump campaign, immorality and false allegations. Victoria Coren Mitchell said she thought the Trump allegations were wrong, because Trump doesn't seem interesting enough to be kinky, more a pound them sort of thug, but that still doesn't explain the proz piss orange barnet.

Stop whinging, you were happy to throw about false allegations when the target wasn't some inarticulate orange fascist.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

That French artist that was in the news for sealing himself inside a boulder for a week, is crazy. Shocked

I wouldn't be able to handle even a minute sealed up like that.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's immoral to repeat extremely damaging allegations against someone with no evidence that they're true.

Oops, now morality comes into play? Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses ...

1 Reply

@oralloy,

We're all crazy.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It's immoral to repeat extremely damaging allegations against someone with no evidence that they're true.
Oops, now morality comes into play? Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses ...

I'm fine with moral arguments. Morality DOES matter in politics, if only as a matter of perception. Trump did behave immorally for years, with his extremely damaging allegations that Obama was not born in the US, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. He lied to the American people again and again about their president. That's profoundly immoral, as Brandon rightly pointed out.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Why would have to be some kind of super-cyber attack?

When I wanted to find an example of the USA doing something on the scale of Russia's current activity the only thing I could think of was the CIA arming "freedom fighters" or actually replacing heads of state. The run-of-the-mill election interference where we give money to "good government" (pro-USA) NGOs or criticize a standing leader are staples of statecraft, widely practiced by other wealthy states, and again are done with the intention of securing and extending economic influence within a stable country.

For much of the post-war period we were able to let our culture (Hollywood, Disney, etc) do much of this work for us because we were actually admired by many people overseas who wanted to live the way we apparently did. This kind of fell apart after Vietnam exposed a darker and less effective side — which was always there, just not as prominent.

What the Russians appear to be doing today (and the New Yorker article I referred to spells this out) is a massive attempt to destabilize the political culture of Western Europe and the USA and undermine the democratic forces in Eastern European states. It's not just about the US election. And since the rise of the web, it's not even that expensive.

Quote:

What could they have exposed that would have changed your votes?

Probably nothing. For one thing, neither the RNC nor the DNC were on the ballot. I'm not a particularly good leftist but I'm a pretty committed anti-rightist. I oppose the political evangelicals, I oppose "profits over pollution", I oppose the USA being turned into a plutocracy, I oppose supply side economics, I oppose American exceptionalism. I opposed Hillary, but given the choice it wasn't that difficult to vote for her. I never thought she was a saint but having seen the right wing propaganda machine construct an alternative biography where she was a serial murderer running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop — no, not really credible. Sorry.

Do you have any curiosity concerning the contacts between the RNC and the Russians? What might they have been talking about? Given the massive hacking and leaking going on, plus the separate campaign of disinformation for profit isn't a bit odd that leading people in the Trump campaign would be in contact with Russia?

Or put it this way. Let's say we live in Russia and the USA is undermining our political system on a massive scale by leaking embarrassing transcripts from inside the Politburo (do they still have a "politburo"?) which put the leaders of the ruling party in a bad light. And then you find out, despite their repeated denials, that the insurgent party has been in contact with the US ambassador. Don't you think, in the interest of state security, that there might be a legitimate reason to know what sorts of things had been discussed?

2 Replies

Here's my new Republican hero.

Quote:

[Iowa Senate Republican Mark] Chelgren made headlines this month as the author of Senate File 288, proposed legislation that seeks to “require partisan balance” of faculty members who work at higher-ed institutions that are governed by the Iowa Board of Regents, according to its text.

Those schools include the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa.

Under the proposed bill, a job candidate who is seeking a position as a professor or instructor would not be hired if his or her political party affiliation on their hire date would “cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party,” the text states.

So that's pretty standard for a movement conservative who figures that university hiring ought to based on an affirmative action system (because there are too many liberals in them). But then there's this...

Quote:

The information that was posted on the Iowa Senate Republican’s website used to suggest that Mark Chelgren, a state lawmaker, held a business degree.

But that wasn’t exactly the case, according to NBC News and other media outlets, which this week reported that Chelgren instead held a certificate for a training program for the chain restaurant Sizzler.

..."apparently a degree and a certificate are different,” Chelgren told AP...Chelgren told the Des Moines Register that the school ran “ran Sizzler restaurants and a few other different restaurants.” He said he spent a few months in the training so that he could be promoted.

WP

Clearly, this is a fellow who has an impressive familiarity with universities.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Let's say we live in Russia and the USA is undermining our political system on a massive scale by leaking embarrassing transcripts from inside the Politburo (do they still have a "politburo"?) which put the leaders of the ruling party in a bad light. And then you find out, despite their repeated denials, that the insurgent party has been in contact with the US ambassador. Don't you think, in the interest of state security, that there might be a legitimate reason to know what sorts of things had been discussed?

In Russia, such a scenario would lead to a few assassinations rather than a public enquiry. Putin is a serious dictator, a gifted puppet master and assassin-in-chief. In contrast, Trump is just... well... a puppet.

0 Replies

Margaret Sullivan has a great piece up today

Quote:

Call it the revenge of the reporters over the pundits.

Tuesday night was a low point for “the media” — if such a multi-headed beast can be described in those two words — as cable-news talking heads gushed over President Trump’s address to Congress.

Will Oremus of Slate put it like this: Trump “managed to speak for an entire hour without sounding like an unhinged demagogue. For that, he was hailed by TV pundits across the spectrum who acted as though he’d just single-handedly defeated the Islamic State and restored the fortunes of the American middle class.”

...But as if to say that not all media are created equal, along came two blockbuster stories from two longtime rival newspapers.

First, on Wednesday evening, with an 8:01 news alert, the New York Times dropped its triple-byline blockbuster: that the Obama administration had scattered a trail of bread crumbs, evidently so that contacts between Trump’s associates and the Russians would not be lost to a coverup by the new administration.

Then, with a 9:04 p.m. news alert, The Washington Post published a shocker on the same general subject: that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had met with the Russian ambassador to the United States twice and failed to disclose that during his Senate confirmation hearings.

Because of dogged reporting, and to some extent on intelligence-community leaks that Trump has found so outrageous, both stories hit hard.

WP

0 Replies

With the market at 21000 and all Trump has to do is win on a couple of is campaign promises...What the **** will the Democratic party and all the little snowflakes, not to mention all the A2K leftist trolls, do when Trump wins in 2020? Mass suicide?

2 Replies

After Sessions recusal, Trump talks

Quote:

"Jeff Sessions is an honest man. He did not say anything wrong. He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional," Trump said in a statement.

"This whole narrative is a way of saving face for Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed to win. The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election and now, they have lost their grip on reality," he added. "The real story is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is a total witch hunt!"

TPM
Two things here. First, his claim that Dems did it is worth ridiculing. All this has come about because of the hard work of reporters following a story that they have a perfect right and responsibility to follow.

Second, his related suggestion that the motivation arises from frustration or anger or the need to "save face" after Trump won the EC and thus the election. Loser bitterness. And we see that suggestion here in georgeob's posts, for example. This one is interesting and I'm trying to figure it out.

Trump might believe it. He clearly thinks in terms of winners/losers. Bullies and authoritarians do think that way as, for them, that's the fundamental measure. "I won, therefore any complaint regarding what I do or protest regarding my exercise of power is merely whining". That seems to be why he had been constantly (and falsely) talking about the magnitude of his win. But for that to make any sense, he has to direct it at Dems rather than reporters, for example.

0 Replies

Here's another thing. Trump has described Sessions' recusal as the result of "a total witch hunt". And guess how Russia's foreign minister describes it - a "witch hunt". Politico
It's a common metaphor/cliche to use in such an instance, of course, but it is hardly the first time that Russian rhetoric and Trump admin rhetoric has been so closely aligned.

I noted this when it happened back on the 18th. At precisely the same time, the Trump people changed their rhetoric re Russia and Kremlin media changed theirs - in the same manner.

Quote:

A funny thing happened in Russia this past week: President Trump’s face, once ubiquitous on the talk shows and evening news programs that tack closely to the Kremlin’s political agenda, was suddenly absent. Gone.

“Like they flipped a switch,” said Alexey Kovalev, a journalist at the Moscow Times who covers Russian state media.

It’s not hard to guess why. Engulfed in scandal over contacts between senior aides and Russian officials, the Trump administration has sought to put daylight between itself and the Kremlin.

WP

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

With the market at 21000 and all Trump has to do is win on a couple of is campaign promises...

Only trouble is, the election's not until 2020. Maybe you've noticed — the stock market is cyclical and booms are followed by busts. No one knows what the Dow (not the "market") will be in three weeks let alone three years.

Quote:

What the **** will the Democratic party and all the little snowflakes, not to mention all the A2K leftist trolls, do when Trump wins in 2020?

Probably they'll do what all the right wing flaggots did after Obama beat Romney — analyze what went wrong and begin to rebuild their political
movement.

Quote:

Mass suicide?

Get a grip, kid. It's just politics.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Do you feel that the political culture in the US could actually get more unstable than it has been since 9/11/01? If anything should be taken away from this whole event, it should be that the US is severely deficient in cyber security and should be investing billions of dollars in training, hiring and building a modern, safer computer infrastructure. There is no reason for a single government computer to have a direct connection to the internet. Not one. There is no shortage of talent in the US that can provide the level of security the government network needs.

This is the thing that pisses me off about the whole Russian hacking thing. That our government allowed itself to be put in the position that it has. THAT is what people should be upset about. I think everyone agrees that the Russians had very little actual influence over the election beyond putting the left into a year long hissy fit.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

If anything should be taken away from this whole event, it should be that the US is severely deficient in cyber security and should be investing billions of dollars in training, hiring and building a modern, safer computer infrastructure.

Agreed! Remember, though — the RNC and DNC aren't government organizations. The DNC, for its part, is always short of funds — I'd criticize them more heavily for their lack of security if I wasn't already so pissed off at the Dems for their inadequate response to the Tea Party, their over-reliance on Obama's star status, and their holding Clinton in the wings for eight years instead of letting new candidates emerge.

Quote:

I think everyone agrees that the Russians had very little actual influence over the election (...)

It's difficult to measure the level of influence because so many factors go into an election. Some commenters have suggested that the DNC hacking had a big influence on the ability of the party to communicate internally. The steady stream of wikileaks really undercut their ability to stay on message. Then there was Comey. And the Macedonian-generated fake news. But more than anything else, Clinton was a sub-optimal candidate. Someone with a more positive image might have withstood the onslaught of negative factors. But we'll never know, it's just speculation.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I'll respond here as well.

Quote:

I think everyone agrees that the Russians had very little actual influence over the election

That's not the case (other than in right wing media land). The consensus actually is, as hightor suggests, that we have no way of discerning whether it was consequential or not.

Quote:

Do you feel that the political culture in the US could actually get more unstable than it has been since 9/11/01?

This is a very odd demarcation point re "stability". Though it was tragic (I was in tears that morning) the actual consequences were not nearly so profound as the financial collapse. And the event itself did not create some significant inflection point where partisanship was suddenly made more extreme. One could make a good case that the SC's involvement in the 2000 election not only made a significant change in the partisan divide but that it demonstrated a clear divide already in place.

Quote:

This is the thing that pisses me off about the whole Russian hacking thing.

Russia's hacking IS important for all the obvious reasons. But it isn't the relevant matter now facing the US (and other nations as well) which is Russia's moves to destabilize western democracies and to create disunity between them. Hacking is merely one tool they use to that end.

As to computer system security, the Iranian enrichment program that was targeted (by the US and Israel, almost certainly) with the Stuxnet worm, was an isolated system. The consensus is that the virus was inserted via a thumb drive. So isolation isn't going to mean security in any absolute sense. Further, that Iranian system compared to the US government was the size of a thimble compared to 20 dump trucks which makes isolation illusory. And, as we know from decades of experience now, bad-actor tech types can fairly quickly get the best of the security systems that even the biggest and most wealthy tech firms have in place with huge staffs dedicated to security.

I don't mean to say that the US or any government ought not to look for ways to increase security. Obviously they must. But I doubt the key problem here is insufficient funding put towards this.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I'm fine with moral arguments. Morality DOES matter in politics, if only as a matter of perception.

I'm fine with it, too - but not when looking only at one side.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

With the market at 21000 and all Trump has to do is win on a couple of is campaign promises...What the **** will the Democratic party and all the little snowflakes, not to mention all the A2K leftist trolls, do when Trump wins in 2020? Mass suicide?

They could cut their little weewees off as some of the snowflakes are promising to do when DT gets started on the Southern wall. They'd need microscopes and micro surgical knives...

https://www.truthorfiction.com/college-student-pledges-to-cut-off-genitals-over-trump-border-wall/

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know