Progressives (Liberals)

Even though Edgar and I have fallen out, I do still agree with you that his intentions are good. God only knows what motivates the other one. I don’t believe anything she says.

That last post of hers that you quoted was a dilly.

Do you also believe that the new far left wave of Democrat Legislators, together with the current menagerie of Democrat declared Presidential candidates who all have made statements ( some a bit vague) supporting at least the goals of the "Green Revolution" are also the beneficiaries of Russian social media deceptions? Or, alternatively, is it all directed at Sanders?

It's difficult to imagine the rational motivation for a Russian effort solely directed at Sanders it this point. Perhaps you have some specific information on which to base your judgment.

Finally, I doubt that the Democrats need any external help in tearing themselves and their core political constituency apart. They are doing quite well on their own, and have made a Trump victory in 2020 likely,

Same things that saw trump lose the house in 18 remain in play phony gop health plans among them and the contined distaste forr trump and his policies and the growing surge for medicare or similar for all and climate change... The dems will coohere behind one candidate and trump wont change. Trump no more years.

Huh? Are you defending Hannity? That would be unbright.

Or maybe you're referring to the Post piece on a sophisticated Russian propaganda operation where they filled social media where Sanders' supporters were active with anti-Hillary screeds under the pretense they were American progressives/Bernie supporters.

As I have previously detailed on a number of occasions - with evidence for the claim - the GOP ran precisely this propaganda operation in 2008. Whatdaya think? They changed their minds, recognized that spreading deceit is immoral? That they've gone all boy scout and decided to act in good faith now?

As to your first paragraph, obviously, george, the Russians will be involving themselves on social media platforms in any endeavor which they believe might will assist in the re-election of Trump. Or perhaps you don't believe the Russians have done/are doing anything like that in which case you'd just a dumbass.

And these guys can be very sophisticated. As I noted a few weeks ago, one tweet that came out of Russian intel gained millions of retweets and actually won a Tweet of the Week (or something) award. This was the tweet:

@democracynow

'Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is “Scandalous” and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of U.S.'

@lhfang

'Can someone explain the "progressive" message ThinkProgress is trying to send with this video about Bernie Sanders?

The Center for American Progress, which sponsors ThinkProgress, is led by board president Tom Daschle, who is a registered lobbyist for Comcast CVS Health-Aetna, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. TP used to criticize those companies, now they carry their water.'




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee8GedvPmBU

It is a valid criticism of Sanders' rhetoric. He should have, as many do (though many don't) added the proviso that he himself has to be included in the category he is indicting. It's a matter of honesty. From a strategic point of view, he has set himself up for the charge of hypocrisy and that bill was going to come due - he could have been smarter. Where Dems behave dishonestly, there is less of a reason for voters to see them as different from modern Republicans.

Republicans will, of course, use this against Sanders particularly if he's the nominee. More broadly though, they'll use this to tar the left generally with the implicit or explicit message that "See, no difference from Trump". So it hurts everybody.

But as I noted earlier, I don't find this disqualifying IF he releases his taxes (I'm sure he will) and changes his rhetoric to better reflect reality.

I made no comment on the sophistication or effectiveness of Russian efforts to sow discord in this country's political affairs. Instead I asked you a couple of specific questions, and you've answered neither of them.

Instead you launch once again into somewhat tiresome recitations of your various propaganda fantasies.

It's very hard to see the existence of any self interest on the part of Russians in defeating a Sanders campaign. Moreover its even harder to see any differences, from their perspective, in any of the current crop of Democrat contenders. The election of any of them would, in my view, serve Putin's self interest, and I strongly suspect he sees that too.

I apologize. Let's try again. I gather it is these two questions you wished me to address...

No. I see no evidence to suggest it and any rationale for them doing so is absent.

your meaning isn't clear. We know that they sought to create disaffection, division and anger among Dem voters through (in this case) encouraging Sanders' supporters to feel or believe they were being cheated by Hillary and her supporters (even so far as encouraging them to vote for Trump). But at this point, I've not seen anything to suggest a sustained campaign related to other candidates. But once that candidate is established (surely even prior to that where some voices stand out and may encourage consensus on the left) then their campaigns will ramp up.

Have I missed something?

His arrest has nothing to do with the US. He failed to appear in court when he was supposed to. There is nothing scandalous about his arrest for that.

Further, there is nothing scandalous about Sweden and the US pressing for the extradition of a criminal.

OK Thanks.

Do you believe the Russian actions Have been and/or continue to be all directed at Democrats? If so what is it you assume motivates them?

I'm assuming Putin is motivated by a desire to limit U.S. Power, both economically and politically, particularly in areas that might affect Russia. Sowing the seeds of political and social disruption throughout the country may well be an important element of that. However, your posts suggest you may believe Russian actions are, and have been, all directed at Democrats. (Alternatively it may be that you are concerned only about their effects on Democrats, and address only them).

It strongly appears to me that most Democrat political leaders and most of the sympathetic (to them) media sources have been suggesting that the Russian hacking and social media actions have been directed exclusively at Democrats, and even were possibly a result of some form of explicit or implicit) coordination with Trump ( a notion for which the Mueller investigation appears to have found little support).

I find that to be very counterintuitive, particularly considering the actions Trump and the Republicans campaigned on and to a large degree have taken. For example Trump's deregulation and tax policies have (among other things) stimulated an enormous increase in U.S. oil and gas production, and have transformed us from a very large net importer to a growing exporter of these commodities. One effect of all this is a very significant drop in world prices for all petroleum products. Russia's economy is heavily dependent on the export of petroleum and minerals, and this constitutes a very serious and continuing threat to their otherwise poorly functioning economy, and therefore to their ability to influence world events. In stark contrast the tax and regulatory policies advocated by Democrats will quickly and substantially reduce our petroleum enough to raise that price and Russian income from exports.

This appears tome to be an existential threat to Putin's current domestic and international policies and, as well, to the oligarchs who support and enrich him.

My opinion is that the Democrat rage and indignation in this matter relates mostly to adverse outcomes that have affected them, and is likely related to their own outrage and denial over the result of the 2016 election. " Our loss can't be our fault - it must have been Trump and the Russians."

In a strange but interesting way this reaction is in keeping with many of their "progressive" group values. No setback or adverse outcome can possibly be the result of mistakes or poor performance on the part of the one involved: instead it mist be the result of a dark conspiracy on the part of hated others, seeking to preserve advantaged positions, etc.

Certainly the Reaction of the DNC to the Russian hacking of its e mail servers suggests this was, at least partly, true. They were warned by the FBI that they had detected several hacking efforts against them but failed to respond, either to the agent warning them or the security of their systems. Despite this their reaction suggested only that they were the victim of a dark conspiracy.

Maybe indicting assage will discourage other republicans from cooperating with Russians for political and monetary gain.

All the evidence we have at this point (which is a lot) indicates that their interventions have been directed at keeping Clinton out of the WH and getting Trump there. The major thrust of this campaign was targeted towards disaffecting Dem voters and encouraging support for Trump (for example, their activities in promoting fright stories about Black Lives Matter).
(Here we are discussing electoral issues as opposed to other security concerns.) That is what your intel agencies and State have concluded along with people in the computer tech/internet world. See Here
We don't know what is in that report. Total exoneration, as we know, is not the case. But the suspicions were entirely valid given the connections between key people in the Trump circle and Russia. For Don Jr to say, in response to the possibility of gaining via Russian hacking, info that would damage Clinton "I'd love to see that, particularly near the election" (paraphrase) indicates pretty clearly that such communication lines were not rejected but were welcomed.

As to economic factors, I can't speak to that subject. But I can't accept your analysis simply because you believe it so.
It is, of course, not merely Dem rage. It is the conclusion of your own intel agencies as noted above. And Republicans, where not overly concerned with supporting Trump, acknowledge what the Russians were/are up to. The notion you are forwarding here is a Trump and right wing media staple, the function of which is to distract from what is Russia's activities - "It could be a 400 pound guy in his basement", as Trump put it long after having been briefed on these issues and knowing that was a lie.

ha ha ha

At the risk of contempt from those who call themselves progressives, I have two comments to make. The first is about that jackass Chomsky. In the mid-1960s, he was the boy wonder, at least in his own estimation, and he made a series of ex cathedra statements about language use and acquisition. He didn't limit himself to linguistic theory, either. He stated, in one of his many ipse dixit fallacies, that there is a language "organ" in the brain, which he said would be located in the left hemisphere. He made a series of such statements about language use in which he basically said that all people learn language in the same manner and use it in the same manner. He denied that American Sign Language is a language, and therefore, by inference, was relegating all hearing impaired North Americans to the realm of dumb animals--because he also said that animals don't communicate--at all. Over the succeeding years, every one of his statements has been shown to be false. As he has demonstrated that he's no kind of linguist, why should he be lent any credence as a political observer and commentator.

The second sin which I will commit here is to ask why the hell Assange should be accorded any special treatment based on freedom of the press? He was tossed from the embassy of Ecuador because he violated the terms of his residence there. He was arrested by the Met on a warrant issued by a magistrate's court in Westminster for failure to surrender to the court, which was to review extradition applications. People want due process of law for their own protection--so why should they be allowed to avoid due process of law at their own convenience, while wrapping themselves in the banner of press freedom? No nation accepts that their secrets can be disseminated willy-nilly without consequence, so why should Assange think that he can do so with impunity? Did he not know at the outset the risk he ran? Has he not the courage of his convictions to accept that risk?

If we are to condemn, even to sneer at Plump's cabinet for a lack of qualifications, why should we accept a claim of expertise by Chomsky who has never demonstrated any such expertise, not even in his chosen academic field. If we condemn members of the Plump's administration and the Republican Party for acting as though they are above the law, why would we not also condemn that on the part of Assange?

WP

Much of this will be quite familiar to readers of this thread.

As will this (same link)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "I haven't had the opportunity to speak with [Rep. Ilhan Omar] to see the nature of her comment and, as is my custom with my colleagues, I call them in before I call them out so I'll look forward to hearing from her."
————————
Looks like Pelosi is siding with Trump against Omar.

In contrast to neoliberal elitist DINOs,

the progressive opinion:

David Sirota
@davidsirota
·
6m
Bernie Sanders becomes the first 2020 presidential candidate to publicly defend
@IlhanMN
— prompting others to follow. This is leadership. We cannot be silent.
Quote Tweet

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
· 2h
Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won't back down to Trump's racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end.