488 thoughts on “Heard something about a debate”

  1. I can’t bring myself to watch another one. Not yet, anyway. Maybe when there are only a few candidates left. Certainly when (if?) the Dem nominee debates Rump.
    I can more or less play these debates in my head before they happen, if not in great detail, at least in terms of general lameness. It’s much easier to read about what happened after the fact. I’ll let others go through the pain of sitting through the whole thing.

  2. I can’t bring myself to watch another one. Not yet, anyway. Maybe when there are only a few candidates left. Certainly when (if?) the Dem nominee debates Rump.
    I can more or less play these debates in my head before they happen, if not in great detail, at least in terms of general lameness. It’s much easier to read about what happened after the fact. I’ll let others go through the pain of sitting through the whole thing.

  3. Linguistic nitpickery: can we please find a different word for it?
    Cattle calls, beauty pageants, horse races, and maybe civil wars, can all work with a dozen competitors taking part. “Debates”, not so much.
    –TP

  4. Linguistic nitpickery: can we please find a different word for it?
    Cattle calls, beauty pageants, horse races, and maybe civil wars, can all work with a dozen competitors taking part. “Debates”, not so much.
    –TP

  7. What hsh said.
    Which, I suppose, is why lj called it “Heard something about the debate”. I guess he figured most of us weren’t masochists. At least to the point of watching ourselves.

  8. What hsh said.
    Which, I suppose, is why lj called it “Heard something about the debate”. I guess he figured most of us weren’t masochists. At least to the point of watching ourselves.

  9. Didn’t watch for the same reasons as others.
    I heard there were no questions about climate change, but CNN in its wisdom did think it worthwhile asking the candidates about any unusual friends they might have, because of the Ellen and Bush thing.
    We are back to who would you like to share a beer with as a deciding question for who should run the country. Although, admittedly, that would rule out Trump as far as I am concerned.

  10. Didn’t watch for the same reasons as others.
    I heard there were no questions about climate change, but CNN in its wisdom did think it worthwhile asking the candidates about any unusual friends they might have, because of the Ellen and Bush thing.
    We are back to who would you like to share a beer with as a deciding question for who should run the country. Although, admittedly, that would rule out Trump as far as I am concerned.

  11. One thing I’m hearing: when challenged by her opponents, Senator Warren continued to dodge on how she proposed to pay for Medicare-for-all.
    The argument for her approach is that a) saying that a tax increase would be required is politically toxic, and anyway b) what matters isn’t the taxes but the total cost.
    However it seems it me that latter makes a truly heroic assumption: that employers will take the money which they now spend on their company health care plans, and convert it into pay raises for their employees. Some few companies might do that. But would anyone really want to bet on it for most of them? Not me.

  12. One thing I’m hearing: when challenged by her opponents, Senator Warren continued to dodge on how she proposed to pay for Medicare-for-all.
    The argument for her approach is that a) saying that a tax increase would be required is politically toxic, and anyway b) what matters isn’t the taxes but the total cost.
    However it seems it me that latter makes a truly heroic assumption: that employers will take the money which they now spend on their company health care plans, and convert it into pay raises for their employees. Some few companies might do that. But would anyone really want to bet on it for most of them? Not me.

  13. If the GOP had stuck to their rhetoric in 2016, and had ‘open carry’ at their presidential debates, I would have watched the sh!t out of them.
    This time? Nah.

  14. If the GOP had stuck to their rhetoric in 2016, and had ‘open carry’ at their presidential debates, I would have watched the sh!t out of them.
    This time? Nah.

  15. Didn’t watch the debates, yet I can’t unhear the Bush/Ellen subject being raised.
    True, Bush should be in jail and Ellen awarded a Nobel Prize, but I use to depend on the National Enquirer to advise me of these sorts of unlikely hookups.
    Yet another institution the conservative movement filth presiding over this excuse of a country have ruined for everyone.
    It’s only the latest confirmation of America as the fully dispensable, full of shit Nation.
    One does wonder however if the latest White House “inquiry” into the disposition of the Ukraine phone recordings might uncover Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Bush himself, in his mock search those years ago, rather obviously neglected to peer up his own ass, where he would have discovered Dick Cheney fully moved in.
    I am pleased to see that at least government is beginning to police our borders to arrest, and one hopes, goddamned execute the conservative republican/p mortal enemies of America, after vetting the fleas on these particular rats, instead of cock-blocking honest, innocent brown people at the border:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/feds-nab-fourth-defendant-in-case-against-giuliani-pals-at-jfk-airport-in-new-york

  16. Didn’t watch the debates, yet I can’t unhear the Bush/Ellen subject being raised.
    True, Bush should be in jail and Ellen awarded a Nobel Prize, but I use to depend on the National Enquirer to advise me of these sorts of unlikely hookups.
    Yet another institution the conservative movement filth presiding over this excuse of a country have ruined for everyone.
    It’s only the latest confirmation of America as the fully dispensable, full of shit Nation.
    One does wonder however if the latest White House “inquiry” into the disposition of the Ukraine phone recordings might uncover Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Bush himself, in his mock search those years ago, rather obviously neglected to peer up his own ass, where he would have discovered Dick Cheney fully moved in.
    I am pleased to see that at least government is beginning to police our borders to arrest, and one hopes, goddamned execute the conservative republican/p mortal enemies of America, after vetting the fleas on these particular rats, instead of cock-blocking honest, innocent brown people at the border:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/feds-nab-fourth-defendant-in-case-against-giuliani-pals-at-jfk-airport-in-new-york

  17. Another thing I’m seeing: Biden had a mediocre night. Everybody was supportive vs Trump’s attacks on him. But while he didn’t have any major stumbles, he didn’t show much that would convince new potential supporters. At some point, if he’s to win this, he’ll need to move beyond being the default at-least-we’ve-heard-of-him candidate. So far, he doesn’t seem to be.

  18. Another thing I’m seeing: Biden had a mediocre night. Everybody was supportive vs Trump’s attacks on him. But while he didn’t have any major stumbles, he didn’t show much that would convince new potential supporters. At some point, if he’s to win this, he’ll need to move beyond being the default at-least-we’ve-heard-of-him candidate. So far, he doesn’t seem to be.

  19. However it seems it me that latter makes a truly heroic assumption…
    There are ways around this, and the campaign should suss them out in due time. If you really are curious about funding ideas, I would suggest you look around. They are out there.
    But to those budget fetishists who always demand detailed funding proposals for Democratic Party programs but NEVER ask the GOP for detailed breakdowns of which government programs they intend to cut or eliminate when they next propose to cut taxes for the rich, I say, “Go fuck yourself.”

  20. However it seems it me that latter makes a truly heroic assumption…
    There are ways around this, and the campaign should suss them out in due time. If you really are curious about funding ideas, I would suggest you look around. They are out there.
    But to those budget fetishists who always demand detailed funding proposals for Democratic Party programs but NEVER ask the GOP for detailed breakdowns of which government programs they intend to cut or eliminate when they next propose to cut taxes for the rich, I say, “Go fuck yourself.”

  21. So far, he doesn’t seem to be.
    Agree.
    His VP stature has given him a huge head start but, just like his other aborted presidential bids, he is blowing it.

  22. So far, he doesn’t seem to be.
    Agree.
    His VP stature has given him a huge head start but, just like his other aborted presidential bids, he is blowing it.

  25. Isn’t the reality that an incoming President Warren would have a whole list of stuff to get through Congress, and would have to make choices ?
    Absent a Democratic landslide, Medicare for all would be a long and bruising fight – and I note that support for single payer is polling well over 70% nationally, compared with a bare 50% for the former.
    I’m not saying it’s not possible, but it would likely mean ditching a whole load of other stuff.

  26. Isn’t the reality that an incoming President Warren would have a whole list of stuff to get through Congress, and would have to make choices ?
    Absent a Democratic landslide, Medicare for all would be a long and bruising fight – and I note that support for single payer is polling well over 70% nationally, compared with a bare 50% for the former.
    I’m not saying it’s not possible, but it would likely mean ditching a whole load of other stuff.

  27. Buttigieg reportedly had a good debate – but it should be noted he’s polling around 0% in South Carolina…

  28. Buttigieg reportedly had a good debate – but it should be noted he’s polling around 0% in South Carolina…

  29. I find these “debates” useless in deciding who to vote for in the primary.
    With all the focus on “winning”, even the smart candidates look stupid trying to score points in these things.

  30. I find these “debates” useless in deciding who to vote for in the primary.
    With all the focus on “winning”, even the smart candidates look stupid trying to score points in these things.

  31. Haven’t checked in at Daily Kos in ages, just took a look and they have a straw poll up on the Democratic candidates. If you want to look at the results without voting you lose your chance to vote, which was fine with me. The results suggest there’s either an idiosyncratic group of folks hanging around those parts, or one particular candidate’s campaign spread the word out to stop by and vote.

  32. Haven’t checked in at Daily Kos in ages, just took a look and they have a straw poll up on the Democratic candidates. If you want to look at the results without voting you lose your chance to vote, which was fine with me. The results suggest there’s either an idiosyncratic group of folks hanging around those parts, or one particular candidate’s campaign spread the word out to stop by and vote.

  35. Medicare for all would be a long and bruising fight – and I note that support for single payer is polling well over 70% nationally, compared with a bare 50% for the former.
    I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.

  36. Medicare for all would be a long and bruising fight – and I note that support for single payer is polling well over 70% nationally, compared with a bare 50% for the former.
    I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.

  37. employers will take the money which they now spend on their company health care plans, and convert it into pay raises for their employees
    pipe dream.
    It’ll be free money. Bonuses for the C-levels for boosting profits through their managerial genius.
    I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.
    I am also puzzled by this.

  38. employers will take the money which they now spend on their company health care plans, and convert it into pay raises for their employees
    pipe dream.
    It’ll be free money. Bonuses for the C-levels for boosting profits through their managerial genius.
    I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.
    I am also puzzled by this.

  39. employers will take the money which they now spend on their company health care plans, and convert it into pay raises for their employees
    It depends on how tight the labor market is for different types of jobs.
    Employees with jobs that people are standing in line for would likely see little or no increase in pay. Jobs in high demand would see increases, but likely not a complete offset.

  40. employers will take the money which they now spend on their company health care plans, and convert it into pay raises for their employees
    It depends on how tight the labor market is for different types of jobs.
    Employees with jobs that people are standing in line for would likely see little or no increase in pay. Jobs in high demand would see increases, but likely not a complete offset.

  41. I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.
    I am also puzzled by this.
    Well I have no real idea what they mean, but how many people on Medicare have only Medicare? Most people on Medicare also have Medicare Supplement policy (“Medigap”), or a Medicare Advantage policy. (A quick attempt to find statistics led to a morass entirely typical of trying to understand anything whatsoever about Medicare.)
    So my first pass at a guess would be that “Medicare for all” would be a system for everyone that’s like the one we have now for people over 65, which is some government coverage, but if you want coverage that doesn’t expose you to massive expense if you get sick, you get a Medigap or Medicare Advantage policy from some other entity. (I have a Medigap policy. Like everyone else over 65, I am getting daily flyers trying to get me to change to some Medicare Advantage policy or other. No fucking way.)
    So in this sense, I don’t consider Medicare as it is currently set up to be single payer, because all by itself it doesn’t cover what any sane person would want it to cover. (Trust me.)
    I don’t know if this is what the pollsters mean in asking the question, and I find it hard to believe that if byomtov and russell and I don’t have a clue, anyone else really does either.
    But again — I would consider “single payer” to mean a system where we no longer have Anthem and Harvard Pilgrim and Martin’s Point and United Healthcare (via AARP) and all of the rest of them still in the business they’re in now……
    ??

  42. I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.
    I am also puzzled by this.
    Well I have no real idea what they mean, but how many people on Medicare have only Medicare? Most people on Medicare also have Medicare Supplement policy (“Medigap”), or a Medicare Advantage policy. (A quick attempt to find statistics led to a morass entirely typical of trying to understand anything whatsoever about Medicare.)
    So my first pass at a guess would be that “Medicare for all” would be a system for everyone that’s like the one we have now for people over 65, which is some government coverage, but if you want coverage that doesn’t expose you to massive expense if you get sick, you get a Medigap or Medicare Advantage policy from some other entity. (I have a Medigap policy. Like everyone else over 65, I am getting daily flyers trying to get me to change to some Medicare Advantage policy or other. No fucking way.)
    So in this sense, I don’t consider Medicare as it is currently set up to be single payer, because all by itself it doesn’t cover what any sane person would want it to cover. (Trust me.)
    I don’t know if this is what the pollsters mean in asking the question, and I find it hard to believe that if byomtov and russell and I don’t have a clue, anyone else really does either.
    But again — I would consider “single payer” to mean a system where we no longer have Anthem and Harvard Pilgrim and Martin’s Point and United Healthcare (via AARP) and all of the rest of them still in the business they’re in now……
    ??

  43. I wish I could understand (and then explain) this system better in terms of where the money flows from. When I first started reading BJ, I was hoping to learn a lot from Richard Mayhew / David Anderson, but I never did plunge in to his posts on health insurance, and anyhow, he’s not writing a primer.
    But a quicker summary of what I wrote above would be: to have decent health insurance, you have to have more than Medicare. The government is one payer, but then there are the other payers, so it is not, for people who want to be properly covered, single payer. (This is all to say nothing of Part D, the drug coverage.)
    Someone should feel free to jump in and correct me and/or clarify.

  44. I wish I could understand (and then explain) this system better in terms of where the money flows from. When I first started reading BJ, I was hoping to learn a lot from Richard Mayhew / David Anderson, but I never did plunge in to his posts on health insurance, and anyhow, he’s not writing a primer.
    But a quicker summary of what I wrote above would be: to have decent health insurance, you have to have more than Medicare. The government is one payer, but then there are the other payers, so it is not, for people who want to be properly covered, single payer. (This is all to say nothing of Part D, the drug coverage.)
    Someone should feel free to jump in and correct me and/or clarify.

  45. I’m not sure what the distinction here is[between single payer and Medicare for all], or what poll respondents think it is.
    It’s entirely about labeling/branding. Which, as Trump tells us, is all-important. Seriously, that’s really the only “substantive” difference: the label.

  46. I’m not sure what the distinction here is[between single payer and Medicare for all], or what poll respondents think it is.
    It’s entirely about labeling/branding. Which, as Trump tells us, is all-important. Seriously, that’s really the only “substantive” difference: the label.

  47. wj, I simply don’t think that’s true. It’s not just labeling. Having the government take over all health insurance (which is what I would call single payer) would be quite different from the Medicare system we have now. Almost everyone who has Medicare has something else, as well. In that sense it is not a single payer system. You have the option to not have another payer, but it’s a risky choice. I have two payers: Medicare, and a for-profit insurance company. Most other people do too.

  48. wj, I simply don’t think that’s true. It’s not just labeling. Having the government take over all health insurance (which is what I would call single payer) would be quite different from the Medicare system we have now. Almost everyone who has Medicare has something else, as well. In that sense it is not a single payer system. You have the option to not have another payer, but it’s a risky choice. I have two payers: Medicare, and a for-profit insurance company. Most other people do too.

  49. Janie,
    I think you are right that is a difference between single-payer and Medicare for all.
    I doubt you are right that that’s what the candidates or the respondents have in mind.
    The points you raise about medigap and so on are not, I think, widely understood, especially by those not old enough to be on Medicare.

  50. Janie,
    I think you are right that is a difference between single-payer and Medicare for all.
    I doubt you are right that that’s what the candidates or the respondents have in mind.
    The points you raise about medigap and so on are not, I think, widely understood, especially by those not old enough to be on Medicare.

  51. said it before… but i really wish the Dems would stop talking about health care plan details. they aren’t running for Senate anymore. they need to show that they can lead, not that they can craft legislation.

  52. said it before… but i really wish the Dems would stop talking about health care plan details. they aren’t running for Senate anymore. they need to show that they can lead, not that they can craft legislation.

  53. wj, I simply don’t think that’s true. It’s not just labeling.
    Perhaps not. But if thete is a real difference, the politicians pushing one or the other have been seriously ineffective at explaining the difference. (Hence my confusion.)

  54. wj, I simply don’t think that’s true. It’s not just labeling.
    Perhaps not. But if thete is a real difference, the politicians pushing one or the other have been seriously ineffective at explaining the difference. (Hence my confusion.)

  55. I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.
    I am also puzzled by this.
    Apologies – I was posting in a hurry, and had a brain fade.
    The relative 73% / 50% support is, of course, for a public option vs Medicare for All.

  56. I’m not sure what the distinction here is, or what poll respondents think it is.
    I am also puzzled by this.
    Apologies – I was posting in a hurry, and had a brain fade.
    The relative 73% / 50% support is, of course, for a public option vs Medicare for All.

  61. So, I was appalled at Clinton’s attack on Gabbard, but also shocked. Why would she attack someone with less than 1% in the polls? Did she just need a foil to revitalize Russian interference in the wake of the Ukraine stuff? Did Tulsi get any good shots in at the debate so she needed to be put in her place?
    Or did she need some other headline as State released the (relatively innocuous) results of the internal investigation of her server usage?

  62. So, I was appalled at Clinton’s attack on Gabbard, but also shocked. Why would she attack someone with less than 1% in the polls? Did she just need a foil to revitalize Russian interference in the wake of the Ukraine stuff? Did Tulsi get any good shots in at the debate so she needed to be put in her place?
    Or did she need some other headline as State released the (relatively innocuous) results of the internal investigation of her server usage?

  63. So, I was appalled at Clinton’s attack on Gabbard, but also shocked.
    Same here. Hard to understand what the hell that was all about.

  64. So, I was appalled at Clinton’s attack on Gabbard, but also shocked.
    Same here. Hard to understand what the hell that was all about.

  65. Clinton didn’t come out of nowhere with it. looks like a story in the NYT last Saturday that got this Gabbard thing rolling.
    https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-puppet-russian-government-ex-south-carolina-rep-tells-cnn-hours-before-dem-1465485
    Why would she attack someone with less than 1% in the polls?
    because Gabbard is using a lot of the same rhetoric that people like Stein and the self-annointed-True-Left used in 2016 – rhetoric apparently fueled by Russia in order to help Trump by depressing and dividing the left.
    it’s not a random smear of nobody. Clinton sees what’s happening now as a replay of what happened in 2016. as she should. because it is.

  66. Clinton didn’t come out of nowhere with it. looks like a story in the NYT last Saturday that got this Gabbard thing rolling.
    https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-puppet-russian-government-ex-south-carolina-rep-tells-cnn-hours-before-dem-1465485
    Why would she attack someone with less than 1% in the polls?
    because Gabbard is using a lot of the same rhetoric that people like Stein and the self-annointed-True-Left used in 2016 – rhetoric apparently fueled by Russia in order to help Trump by depressing and dividing the left.
    it’s not a random smear of nobody. Clinton sees what’s happening now as a replay of what happened in 2016. as she should. because it is.

  71. I guess that’s why I thought I might vote for her instead of no one, not that I would get the chance. Assuming Trump of course. With any luck he gets kicked out and I get another choice.

  72. I guess that’s why I thought I might vote for her instead of no one, not that I would get the chance. Assuming Trump of course. With any luck he gets kicked out and I get another choice.

  73. I guess that’s why I thought I might vote for her
    In case — which I doubt — anyone needed proof that Tulsi’s entire raison d’etre is to destroy the Democrats one way or another.

  74. I guess that’s why I thought I might vote for her
    In case — which I doubt — anyone needed proof that Tulsi’s entire raison d’etre is to destroy the Democrats one way or another.

  75. And so, the big tent party folds it up and goes home midst the strangest of preoccupations with Russia and supporting endless war.

  76. And so, the big tent party folds it up and goes home midst the strangest of preoccupations with Russia and supporting endless war.

  77. supporting endless war.
    this is one of the most disingenuous talking points i’ve seen from the right in a long time. i know, because of how often they repeat it, that they think it’s very clever; but it’s actually very silly.
    what the left supports is not being stupid.
    getting out of wars is great. but only a fool does it in a way that maximizes pain to his allies and gives maximum benefit to his foes. that’s stupid.
    and, oddly, “conservatives” have nothing to say about Trump literally renting our military to Saudi Arabia at the same time he’s ending “endless war”.
    Republicans gotta Republican, i guess.

  78. supporting endless war.
    this is one of the most disingenuous talking points i’ve seen from the right in a long time. i know, because of how often they repeat it, that they think it’s very clever; but it’s actually very silly.
    what the left supports is not being stupid.
    getting out of wars is great. but only a fool does it in a way that maximizes pain to his allies and gives maximum benefit to his foes. that’s stupid.
    and, oddly, “conservatives” have nothing to say about Trump literally renting our military to Saudi Arabia at the same time he’s ending “endless war”.
    Republicans gotta Republican, i guess.

  79. Also, I have to add, that “the strangest of preoccupations with Russia” is not strange at all to anybody open to the actual facts: Russia actively tried to (and almost certainly succeeded in) subverting your 2016 election, and is already trying for the next one. Just as they tried (successfully) for Brexit in furtherance of their long term goal of damaging the EU (and eventually NATO), and (successfully) to increase their influence and leverage in the ME. Cui bono? is what anybody even vaguely openminded should be asking about most of these developments, and the answer is almost always Putin and Russia.

  80. Also, I have to add, that “the strangest of preoccupations with Russia” is not strange at all to anybody open to the actual facts: Russia actively tried to (and almost certainly succeeded in) subverting your 2016 election, and is already trying for the next one. Just as they tried (successfully) for Brexit in furtherance of their long term goal of damaging the EU (and eventually NATO), and (successfully) to increase their influence and leverage in the ME. Cui bono? is what anybody even vaguely openminded should be asking about most of these developments, and the answer is almost always Putin and Russia.

  81. And so, the big tent party
    Well cleek, I dunno, I think I’ve got a rival “most disingenuous talking point” for you.
    “Big tent” doesn’t mean abandoning the principles the party stands for to chase after people who don’t believe in them in the slightest. There is not a single real Democrat Marty would vote for, he has said it, and explained it, ad nauseam for the 11 or 12 years I’ve been reading ObWi. Trying to appeal to Marty is not being a “big tent” — it’s becoming Rs under another name.
    We have gotten where we are because the R party (ask wj) has capitulated to it’s rightmost lunatic fringe. Moving the D party ever rightward to try to chase the R leftovers is to collaborate in that process, and basically to commit party suicide.
    After a while the tent gets so big that it collapses. No thank you.

  82. And so, the big tent party
    Well cleek, I dunno, I think I’ve got a rival “most disingenuous talking point” for you.
    “Big tent” doesn’t mean abandoning the principles the party stands for to chase after people who don’t believe in them in the slightest. There is not a single real Democrat Marty would vote for, he has said it, and explained it, ad nauseam for the 11 or 12 years I’ve been reading ObWi. Trying to appeal to Marty is not being a “big tent” — it’s becoming Rs under another name.
    We have gotten where we are because the R party (ask wj) has capitulated to it’s rightmost lunatic fringe. Moving the D party ever rightward to try to chase the R leftovers is to collaborate in that process, and basically to commit party suicide.
    After a while the tent gets so big that it collapses. No thank you.

  83. There is a difference between objecting to collaborating to ensure that we retain our “stature” in the world, a long held bipartisan position, and objecting to Trump being incompetent.
    Support for endless war has always been a centrist position in American politics. Not necessarily the phrase, but the reality. Gabbard position is considered pretty far left and I agree with it.
    The idea that this is somehow in support of Russia is Cold War rhetoric returned to haunt us.

  84. There is a difference between objecting to collaborating to ensure that we retain our “stature” in the world, a long held bipartisan position, and objecting to Trump being incompetent.
    Support for endless war has always been a centrist position in American politics. Not necessarily the phrase, but the reality. Gabbard position is considered pretty far left and I agree with it.
    The idea that this is somehow in support of Russia is Cold War rhetoric returned to haunt us.

  85. What cleek said. If what’s happening with Gabbard hasn’t long been obvious to everyone, I don’t really know where people’s heads have been. I guess the “Hillary didn’t give a speech in Michigan” crowd still can’t accept what actually happened in 2016.

  86. What cleek said. If what’s happening with Gabbard hasn’t long been obvious to everyone, I don’t really know where people’s heads have been. I guess the “Hillary didn’t give a speech in Michigan” crowd still can’t accept what actually happened in 2016.

  87. The people who haven’t accepted what happened cling to a boogey man theory that Russia brainwashed 63 million Americans. They did use social media to hype the base, but pretending they changed the outcome by supporting trump and Stein is mostly wishful thinking. The meaningful 3rd party candidate took votes from Trump.
    Hillary just lost. 50 million words trying to explain it later, it is still true, she lost.

  88. The people who haven’t accepted what happened cling to a boogey man theory that Russia brainwashed 63 million Americans. They did use social media to hype the base, but pretending they changed the outcome by supporting trump and Stein is mostly wishful thinking. The meaningful 3rd party candidate took votes from Trump.
    Hillary just lost. 50 million words trying to explain it later, it is still true, she lost.

  89. a boogey man theory that Russia brainwashed 63 million Americans.
    that’s a theory that you just invented.
    the election came down to 100K votes in three states: MI, WI, PA.
    that’s not a lot of people. and Russia didn’t have to sway very many to have a meaningful impact.
    The meaningful 3rd party candidate took votes from Trump.
    and the other meaningful third party candidate took votes from Cilnton:

    In Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes, according to current totals on the state’s official website.
    And in Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.
    In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Stein’s total of 49,485 votes was just slightly smaller than Trump’s victory margin of 67,416 votes, according to the state’s latest numbers.

    sure, some people are going to vote third party no matter what. but Stein tripled her 2012 percentage in 2016.
    this is exactly what Russia set out to do, we know this. multiple investigations have shown it. the Senate investigation says the Russians popped champagne in the troll farm office when the results came in.
    it’s what they’re doing now.
    for some unfathomable (i kid) reason, you want it to continue.

  90. a boogey man theory that Russia brainwashed 63 million Americans.
    that’s a theory that you just invented.
    the election came down to 100K votes in three states: MI, WI, PA.
    that’s not a lot of people. and Russia didn’t have to sway very many to have a meaningful impact.
    The meaningful 3rd party candidate took votes from Trump.
    and the other meaningful third party candidate took votes from Cilnton:

    In Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes, according to current totals on the state’s official website.
    And in Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.
    In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Stein’s total of 49,485 votes was just slightly smaller than Trump’s victory margin of 67,416 votes, according to the state’s latest numbers.

    sure, some people are going to vote third party no matter what. but Stein tripled her 2012 percentage in 2016.
    this is exactly what Russia set out to do, we know this. multiple investigations have shown it. the Senate investigation says the Russians popped champagne in the troll farm office when the results came in.
    it’s what they’re doing now.
    for some unfathomable (i kid) reason, you want it to continue.

  91. cleek recites facts for which there is plenty of evidence.
    I’ll take it a step further and say that there’s probably a lot more that we don’t know.
    I’m really tired of the charade that deters people from keeping their eyes open to what has happened (and continues to happen with the acquiescence of people like Marty and some “true leftists”). Those tax cuts must feel really good.

  92. cleek recites facts for which there is plenty of evidence.
    I’ll take it a step further and say that there’s probably a lot more that we don’t know.
    I’m really tired of the charade that deters people from keeping their eyes open to what has happened (and continues to happen with the acquiescence of people like Marty and some “true leftists”). Those tax cuts must feel really good.

  93. @Janie: We have gotten where we are because the R party (ask wj) has capitulated to it’s rightmost lunatic fringe.
    I’d say that’s only half the story. The other half being capitulation to the libertarian-most lunatic fringe. Libertarian being, I think, orthogonal to the left/right axis.
    The lunatic part still applies. But they worship the insanity of Ayn Rand (see ex-Speaker Ryan’s worshipful comments on her) rather than the insanity of Falwell and La Pierre.

  94. @Janie: We have gotten where we are because the R party (ask wj) has capitulated to it’s rightmost lunatic fringe.
    I’d say that’s only half the story. The other half being capitulation to the libertarian-most lunatic fringe. Libertarian being, I think, orthogonal to the left/right axis.
    The lunatic part still applies. But they worship the insanity of Ayn Rand (see ex-Speaker Ryan’s worshipful comments on her) rather than the insanity of Falwell and La Pierre.

  97. Libertarians: a small, powerless, unimportant, ultra-rightwing group
    Well, you got 1 out of 3. “Small” I grant you. But “powerless”? “Unimportant”? Way too many huge Republican donors (Kochs, Mercers, etc., etc.) fit the description to call them either.
    Not sure I agree with the “ultra-rightwing” part either, obviously. But that would seem to be a different discussion.

  98. Libertarians: a small, powerless, unimportant, ultra-rightwing group
    Well, you got 1 out of 3. “Small” I grant you. But “powerless”? “Unimportant”? Way too many huge Republican donors (Kochs, Mercers, etc., etc.) fit the description to call them either.
    Not sure I agree with the “ultra-rightwing” part either, obviously. But that would seem to be a different discussion.

  99. Libertarians often get called rightwing even though they have about as much in common with the left as with the right.

  100. Libertarians often get called rightwing even though they have about as much in common with the left as with the right.

  101. Gabbard has recently been endorsed by both David Duke and Richard Spencer.
    i suspect that’s not going to help her with the Democratic nomination.

  102. Gabbard has recently been endorsed by both David Duke and Richard Spencer.
    i suspect that’s not going to help her with the Democratic nomination.

  105. White nationalist “big” tent, yeah, that sounds like something the Democrats should be shat upon for not pursuing.

  106. White nationalist “big” tent, yeah, that sounds like something the Democrats should be shat upon for not pursuing.

  107. Libertarians often get called rightwing even though they have about as much in common with the left as with the right.
    As an actually existing political movement that seeks to implement an array of public policies, libertarianism has just about nothing in common with “the left”.

  108. Libertarians often get called rightwing even though they have about as much in common with the left as with the right.
    As an actually existing political movement that seeks to implement an array of public policies, libertarianism has just about nothing in common with “the left”.

  109. Gabbard’s most favorable aspect to libertarians is that she doesn’t see the need for the US to be engaged in the world by bombing brown people. Neocons and war hawks see this as being isolationist.

  110. Gabbard’s most favorable aspect to libertarians is that she doesn’t see the need for the US to be engaged in the world by bombing brown people. Neocons and war hawks see this as being isolationist.

  111. Keeping the Randians and Libertarians at each others’ throats is a comforting thing.
    “Libertarians often get called rightwing even though they have about as much in common with the left as with the right.”
    A true statement.
    Libertarians can be guilt-free fun in the sack, but when they start questioning whether the birth control is taxpayer-subsidized and then refuse some gummint help in covering the resulting offspring’s medical expenses, well no dessert then for the ideologues when they come a knocking, so to speak.
    Laura Ingalls (Libertarian Hero) Pa ‘splaining the libertarian approach to his kids in the text of “Little Squatters on the Prairie Subsidized By The Rapine, Scalping, and Buffalo Herd Species Wiping Out of the U.S. Cavalry”.
    “When white settlers come into a country, the Indians have to move on. The government is going to move these Indians farther west any time now. That’s why we’re here, Laura. White people are going to settle all this country, and we get the best land because we get here first and take our pick. Now do you understand?”
    Oh yeah, we get it.

  112. Keeping the Randians and Libertarians at each others’ throats is a comforting thing.
    “Libertarians often get called rightwing even though they have about as much in common with the left as with the right.”
    A true statement.
    Libertarians can be guilt-free fun in the sack, but when they start questioning whether the birth control is taxpayer-subsidized and then refuse some gummint help in covering the resulting offspring’s medical expenses, well no dessert then for the ideologues when they come a knocking, so to speak.
    Laura Ingalls (Libertarian Hero) Pa ‘splaining the libertarian approach to his kids in the text of “Little Squatters on the Prairie Subsidized By The Rapine, Scalping, and Buffalo Herd Species Wiping Out of the U.S. Cavalry”.
    “When white settlers come into a country, the Indians have to move on. The government is going to move these Indians farther west any time now. That’s why we’re here, Laura. White people are going to settle all this country, and we get the best land because we get here first and take our pick. Now do you understand?”
    Oh yeah, we get it.

  113. Libertarians promoted civil liberties, like gay rights, decades before it became generally fashionable. Those civil liberties had nothing in common with “the left?”

  114. Libertarians promoted civil liberties, like gay rights, decades before it became generally fashionable. Those civil liberties had nothing in common with “the left?”

  115. Gabbard’s most favorable aspect to libertarians is that she doesn’t see the need for the US to be engaged in the world by bombing brown people.
    She’s fine with the autocratic browns committing atrocities on their own people though.

  116. Gabbard’s most favorable aspect to libertarians is that she doesn’t see the need for the US to be engaged in the world by bombing brown people.
    She’s fine with the autocratic browns committing atrocities on their own people though.

  117. Gabbard, a self-professed Hindu, loves her some Modi, and has adopted some rather unconventional foreign policy positions that are deemed congenital to those held by a good deal of “the Left”, but for all the wrong reasons. Her anti-Islam animus, and love of drone warfare are examples.
    Nonetheless, she is a reliable vote in the House for majority Dem positions and has a voting record that is far from unconventional in a centerist Democratic Party sense.
    Steve Bannon had a thing for her also. I suspect, bots or no bots, she will go the way of 9-9-9 Herman Cain as presidential candidates go.
    I have no real objection to her if she on board with grinding the current manifestation of the Republican Party into dust. Other than that, the people in her Congressional District are the ones who should make any decisions about her future Congressional career.

  118. Gabbard, a self-professed Hindu, loves her some Modi, and has adopted some rather unconventional foreign policy positions that are deemed congenital to those held by a good deal of “the Left”, but for all the wrong reasons. Her anti-Islam animus, and love of drone warfare are examples.
    Nonetheless, she is a reliable vote in the House for majority Dem positions and has a voting record that is far from unconventional in a centerist Democratic Party sense.
    Steve Bannon had a thing for her also. I suspect, bots or no bots, she will go the way of 9-9-9 Herman Cain as presidential candidates go.
    I have no real objection to her if she on board with grinding the current manifestation of the Republican Party into dust. Other than that, the people in her Congressional District are the ones who should make any decisions about her future Congressional career.

  119. Besides Rand hated libertarians.
    She hated anybody who was not a personal sycophant to her peculiar personal eccentricities.

  120. Besides Rand hated libertarians.
    She hated anybody who was not a personal sycophant to her peculiar personal eccentricities.

  121. On the effects of Russian interference—
    http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election-results/
    On Gabbard, I am not a Tulsi supporter for the reasons bobbyp mentioned. But on this spat with Clinton, I agree with her. There is a warmongering element in the Democratic and Republican Party— they don’t like Trump because Trump is an incompetent unstable idiot, but they are for endless interventions and the only thing they learned from Iraq is that Americans don’t like having hundreds of thousands of our ground troops stuck in an endless war. So we intervene in other bloody ways that don’t involve too much of our own blood. Democrats have turned against the war in Yemen, but still paper over who initially supported it. And if Democrats are so passionately antiwar, why was Clinton’s nomination in 2016 supposed to have been inevitable? Why was she always hailed as a foreign policy expert? And on Syria, why was the mainstream criticism of Obama the incorrect claim that he wasn’t intervening? He was intervening. He poured weapons into Syria. His critics, including Clinton, wanted more intervention.
    Tulsi pointed out in the debate that both parties are partly responsible for the bloodbath in Syria. Trump is responsible for the current situation, but contrary to the NYT today, we didn’t just support nice polite good rebels in Syria. We supported people who fought side by side with Al Nusra. Ben Rhodes pointed out the contradiction in our policy of keeping AlNusra on the terrorism list when we were arming people who fight alongside them. Al Nusra were the militarily most effective members of the coalition. I believe Rhodes himself suggested taking Al Nusra off the terrorist list, but I would have to check the book out from the library—not giving that a@@-hole money.
    The centrist liberal press tiptoes around the uglier aspects of our foreign policy when centrist liberal Democrats are involved. Samantha Power just came out with her own book. I haven’t read it. Too long a waiting list at the library. From what I have read, like Ben Rhodes, she says nothing about Obama’s support for the Saudi war in Yemen and for the most part she has received loving media attention.
    I wish someone other than Tulsi were making her arguments, but Bernie is and always has been more focused on domestic issues and Warren is even less interested. If Bernie really cut loose on our foreign policy sins, it would kill his already diminishing chances. Biden has generally been on the wrong side.
    As for Russians, of course they support people who criticize US foreign policy. They did that in the Cold War. The US foreign policy establishment ( Democratic and Republican) do the same thing— express performative moral,outrage about the dastardly deeds of the other side and shriek about people who fall into the sin of moral equivalence when our crimes are mentioned. Yang committed that sin too, I just read. Of course this particular situation is different because Trump is not part of the Establishment and his crime was to betray the Kurds, which benefits Russia as they have had to make a deal with Assad.
    There aren’t honest discussions about US interventionism in the political mainstream because both parties are involved and because politicians are understandably afraid of offending voters if they sound too unpatriotic. I never really heard much discussion about how we were both bombing AlQaeda and supporting people who were their allies on the battlefield. In theory the press could fill the gap, but they generally don’t. They listen to experts from think tanks and they stick fairly close to what people in Washington think. Trump has upset the applecart with his corruption and idiocy and incoherent stances but people like me listen to both Trump and many of his critics and want to vomit on both sides.
    The only criticism of Tulsi I would make on this isn’t necessarily her fault. She didn’t have time to go into details, so I don’t know what she would have said if she had. But the support for the Kurds was not part of the regime change war, or not directly. Though I suspect it was meant to put pressure on Assad because the US did not want the Kurds making a deal with Assad. If we couldn’t win, we wanted Syrians under Assad to suffer as much as possible. No rebuilding, no oil revenue. This has always been one of our tactics with governments we dislike.
    As for Clinton’s attack, I suspect it was in part meant to hurt Bernie. Some of his supporters want him to be more forthrightly anti interventionist and also, Gabbard supported him in 2016. Yang defended her, so why doesn’t he? Of course if he does then he becomes the Russian asset and the target of all the horrified folk in the press who will say he is guilty of moral equivalence. Fine job of ratf***ing.

  122. On the effects of Russian interference—
    http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election-results/
    On Gabbard, I am not a Tulsi supporter for the reasons bobbyp mentioned. But on this spat with Clinton, I agree with her. There is a warmongering element in the Democratic and Republican Party— they don’t like Trump because Trump is an incompetent unstable idiot, but they are for endless interventions and the only thing they learned from Iraq is that Americans don’t like having hundreds of thousands of our ground troops stuck in an endless war. So we intervene in other bloody ways that don’t involve too much of our own blood. Democrats have turned against the war in Yemen, but still paper over who initially supported it. And if Democrats are so passionately antiwar, why was Clinton’s nomination in 2016 supposed to have been inevitable? Why was she always hailed as a foreign policy expert? And on Syria, why was the mainstream criticism of Obama the incorrect claim that he wasn’t intervening? He was intervening. He poured weapons into Syria. His critics, including Clinton, wanted more intervention.
    Tulsi pointed out in the debate that both parties are partly responsible for the bloodbath in Syria. Trump is responsible for the current situation, but contrary to the NYT today, we didn’t just support nice polite good rebels in Syria. We supported people who fought side by side with Al Nusra. Ben Rhodes pointed out the contradiction in our policy of keeping AlNusra on the terrorism list when we were arming people who fight alongside them. Al Nusra were the militarily most effective members of the coalition. I believe Rhodes himself suggested taking Al Nusra off the terrorist list, but I would have to check the book out from the library—not giving that a@@-hole money.
    The centrist liberal press tiptoes around the uglier aspects of our foreign policy when centrist liberal Democrats are involved. Samantha Power just came out with her own book. I haven’t read it. Too long a waiting list at the library. From what I have read, like Ben Rhodes, she says nothing about Obama’s support for the Saudi war in Yemen and for the most part she has received loving media attention.
    I wish someone other than Tulsi were making her arguments, but Bernie is and always has been more focused on domestic issues and Warren is even less interested. If Bernie really cut loose on our foreign policy sins, it would kill his already diminishing chances. Biden has generally been on the wrong side.
    As for Russians, of course they support people who criticize US foreign policy. They did that in the Cold War. The US foreign policy establishment ( Democratic and Republican) do the same thing— express performative moral,outrage about the dastardly deeds of the other side and shriek about people who fall into the sin of moral equivalence when our crimes are mentioned. Yang committed that sin too, I just read. Of course this particular situation is different because Trump is not part of the Establishment and his crime was to betray the Kurds, which benefits Russia as they have had to make a deal with Assad.
    There aren’t honest discussions about US interventionism in the political mainstream because both parties are involved and because politicians are understandably afraid of offending voters if they sound too unpatriotic. I never really heard much discussion about how we were both bombing AlQaeda and supporting people who were their allies on the battlefield. In theory the press could fill the gap, but they generally don’t. They listen to experts from think tanks and they stick fairly close to what people in Washington think. Trump has upset the applecart with his corruption and idiocy and incoherent stances but people like me listen to both Trump and many of his critics and want to vomit on both sides.
    The only criticism of Tulsi I would make on this isn’t necessarily her fault. She didn’t have time to go into details, so I don’t know what she would have said if she had. But the support for the Kurds was not part of the regime change war, or not directly. Though I suspect it was meant to put pressure on Assad because the US did not want the Kurds making a deal with Assad. If we couldn’t win, we wanted Syrians under Assad to suffer as much as possible. No rebuilding, no oil revenue. This has always been one of our tactics with governments we dislike.
    As for Clinton’s attack, I suspect it was in part meant to hurt Bernie. Some of his supporters want him to be more forthrightly anti interventionist and also, Gabbard supported him in 2016. Yang defended her, so why doesn’t he? Of course if he does then he becomes the Russian asset and the target of all the horrified folk in the press who will say he is guilty of moral equivalence. Fine job of ratf***ing.

  127. Extended quote from NYT piece. Btw, he pulls no punches about Assad regime atrocities either—
    “ In Latakia, a beach town in the regime’s northwestern heartland, I met a 53-year-old businessman named Munzer Nasser, who commands a militia composed almost entirely of older men; there are no young men left in his village. One of its members, he told me, is a 65-year-old whose three sons have all been killed in the war. Behind the Assad regime’s atrocities lies a fear of demographic exhaustion. Its rebel opponents have no such worries: They can draw on a vast well of Islamist sympathizers across the Arab world.
    These facts translate into a genuine gratitude — in regime-controlled areas — toward Russia, whose military intervention in late 2015 may have forestalled a total collapse. Many Syrians say they feel reassured by the sight of Russian soldiers, because they (unlike the army and its allied militias) are not likely to loot or steal. Some of my contacts in regime-controlled areas are even learning Russian. In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area. In this sense, the Russian intervention was a lucky thing for the Obama administration too. Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as “catastrophic success.”

  128. Extended quote from NYT piece. Btw, he pulls no punches about Assad regime atrocities either—
    “ In Latakia, a beach town in the regime’s northwestern heartland, I met a 53-year-old businessman named Munzer Nasser, who commands a militia composed almost entirely of older men; there are no young men left in his village. One of its members, he told me, is a 65-year-old whose three sons have all been killed in the war. Behind the Assad regime’s atrocities lies a fear of demographic exhaustion. Its rebel opponents have no such worries: They can draw on a vast well of Islamist sympathizers across the Arab world.
    These facts translate into a genuine gratitude — in regime-controlled areas — toward Russia, whose military intervention in late 2015 may have forestalled a total collapse. Many Syrians say they feel reassured by the sight of Russian soldiers, because they (unlike the army and its allied militias) are not likely to loot or steal. Some of my contacts in regime-controlled areas are even learning Russian. In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area. In this sense, the Russian intervention was a lucky thing for the Obama administration too. Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as “catastrophic success.”

  129. Last comment and I am done for the day.
    That Sunday NYT magazine article was superb, but most of what I read or hear in mainstream discussions about Syria is childish stupid nonsense about good guys vs bad guys and btw, I also hear this on the far left, though there people are split on who the good noble fighters are and who were the evil demons.
    In reality it was apparently a vicious brutal civil war and only a moral idiot would think you could have a happy ending by pouring weapons into the situation with the idea that you would be arming the nice polite democratic rebels. Sure. Meanwhile, over in Gaza where another bunch of Muslim Brotherhood types run the place you have Hillary Clinton demonizing them and making excuses for when Israel bombed civilian areas. Think of Syria as what Israel, the WB and Gaza would like if billions of dollars were poured into the hands of Hamas.
    Actually, bombed Middle Eastern cities look much the same whether it was the Americans, Russians, Israelis or Saudis doing the bombing.

  130. Last comment and I am done for the day.
    That Sunday NYT magazine article was superb, but most of what I read or hear in mainstream discussions about Syria is childish stupid nonsense about good guys vs bad guys and btw, I also hear this on the far left, though there people are split on who the good noble fighters are and who were the evil demons.
    In reality it was apparently a vicious brutal civil war and only a moral idiot would think you could have a happy ending by pouring weapons into the situation with the idea that you would be arming the nice polite democratic rebels. Sure. Meanwhile, over in Gaza where another bunch of Muslim Brotherhood types run the place you have Hillary Clinton demonizing them and making excuses for when Israel bombed civilian areas. Think of Syria as what Israel, the WB and Gaza would like if billions of dollars were poured into the hands of Hamas.
    Actually, bombed Middle Eastern cities look much the same whether it was the Americans, Russians, Israelis or Saudis doing the bombing.

  131. Libertarians promoted civil liberties, like gay rights, decades before it became generally fashionable
    Sorry Charles. Insofar as this claim has anything to do with actual history, boots on the ground organizing, building widespread political pressure, and promoting actual public policies put in place to enhance and enforce these rights, this is utter bullshit.

  132. Libertarians promoted civil liberties, like gay rights, decades before it became generally fashionable
    Sorry Charles. Insofar as this claim has anything to do with actual history, boots on the ground organizing, building widespread political pressure, and promoting actual public policies put in place to enhance and enforce these rights, this is utter bullshit.

  135. Back for a correction—
    Where I said—
    “ Meanwhile, over in Gaza where another bunch of Muslim Brotherhood types run the place”
    I meant that Hamas and the Free Syrian Army rebels are ideologically similar. It sounded like I was implying that Assad was Muslim Brotherhood, but the Assad family has a history of brutal repression of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  136. Back for a correction—
    Where I said—
    “ Meanwhile, over in Gaza where another bunch of Muslim Brotherhood types run the place”
    I meant that Hamas and the Free Syrian Army rebels are ideologically similar. It sounded like I was implying that Assad was Muslim Brotherhood, but the Assad family has a history of brutal repression of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  137. Thanks for the link, Donald. The part about how Assad scraped a more conciliatory speech for a hard line one as the civil war started is indeed a stark reminder of how needlessly stupid and cruel we can become and subsequently unleash needless bloody tragedy.

  138. Thanks for the link, Donald. The part about how Assad scraped a more conciliatory speech for a hard line one as the civil war started is indeed a stark reminder of how needlessly stupid and cruel we can become and subsequently unleash needless bloody tragedy.

  139. sure, some people are going to vote third party no matter what.
    Clinton received slightly fewer votes than Obama did in 2012, but Trump received a good deal more votes than Romney did. Both the Greens and the Glibertarians got way more votes than they did in the previous presidential election. Glibertarians especially so.
    Many contributing factors had a hand in her defeat, but I usually cite the resurgent racial revanchism of Trump’s rhetoric and its appeal to systemic and widespread white racism and Comey’s October surprise.
    Jill Stein and here supporters were, and continue to be, an irrelevancy.
    There are bigger fish to fry.
    So. What happened in the Brexit ordeal today?

  140. sure, some people are going to vote third party no matter what.
    Clinton received slightly fewer votes than Obama did in 2012, but Trump received a good deal more votes than Romney did. Both the Greens and the Glibertarians got way more votes than they did in the previous presidential election. Glibertarians especially so.
    Many contributing factors had a hand in her defeat, but I usually cite the resurgent racial revanchism of Trump’s rhetoric and its appeal to systemic and widespread white racism and Comey’s October surprise.
    Jill Stein and here supporters were, and continue to be, an irrelevancy.
    There are bigger fish to fry.
    So. What happened in the Brexit ordeal today?

  141. I usually cite the resurgent racial revanchism of Trump’s rhetoric and its appeal to systemic and widespread white racism and Comey’s October surprise.
    Cool – those were definitely contributing factors (although both were exacerbated by Russia, considering that “but her emails” was a story made possible by Russia and Julian Assange, and Russian trolls working to suppress the African-American vote were a proven thing). Without Russian interference, Hillary would be president. Russia’s role is the big fish here.

  142. I usually cite the resurgent racial revanchism of Trump’s rhetoric and its appeal to systemic and widespread white racism and Comey’s October surprise.
    Cool – those were definitely contributing factors (although both were exacerbated by Russia, considering that “but her emails” was a story made possible by Russia and Julian Assange, and Russian trolls working to suppress the African-American vote were a proven thing). Without Russian interference, Hillary would be president. Russia’s role is the big fish here.

  143. Both the Greens and the Glibertarians got way more votes than they did in the previous presidential election. Glibertarians especially so.
    As I predicted. 🙂
    “This election cycle is shaping up to be a possible black swan event. Both the Republican and Democrat candidates are at risk of tanking in spectacular ways. The Libertarian candidate is likely to get a larger percentage of the vote than the LP has ever gotten before.”
    Posted by: CharlesWT | June 06, 2016 at 02:12 PM (The direct link isn’t working)

  144. Both the Greens and the Glibertarians got way more votes than they did in the previous presidential election. Glibertarians especially so.
    As I predicted. 🙂
    “This election cycle is shaping up to be a possible black swan event. Both the Republican and Democrat candidates are at risk of tanking in spectacular ways. The Libertarian candidate is likely to get a larger percentage of the vote than the LP has ever gotten before.”
    Posted by: CharlesWT | June 06, 2016 at 02:12 PM (The direct link isn’t working)

  147. “ being a very popular Sec of State will do that.”
    Back for a moment.
    Yes it will., especially if people don’t take their professed moral outrage over the Iraq War very seriously. 2003 was a pivotal moment in history and a significant fraction of the Democratic Party and of course most Republicans blew it. Libya was not a shining moment and neither was Syria. Yemen came after she left, but there is zero evidence she would have been dovish there.
    By and large, most Americans don’t care that much about foreign policy if we aren’t losing American lives This could even be a good thing if we didn’t have a foreign policy elite with megalomaniac delusions of moral grandeur and that is before Trump came along. But since we do have such people usually controlling things, we get these endless string of interventions and then interventions to solve the earlier interventions. Note the plan mentioned in my citation from the NYT Aleppo piece— if we had actually succeeded in toppling Assad, there was a plan to intervene to prevent the genocide that was likely going to occur as a result.
    Catastrophic success. Tulsi wasn’t harsh enough.
    The only genuinely good thing we’ve done over there was the Iranian nuclear treaty, which Trump tore up. Supporting the Kurds was arguably good, but we had to pull out sooner or later. Though not so abruptly and idiotically.
    Beinart has a piece up making a different criticism, not one I am comfortable with. But he says the plan of some Democrats to leave Afghanistan is essentially going to lead to the same results. The Taliban will take over.
    So I guess if we do want to be the world’s policeman, put it to a vote. And hold ourselves accountable when we commit war crimes. Neither will happen. Trump, in the meantime, is just a random, incompetent blithering idiot who is screwing up our already morally disastrous policies.
    I should do something besides ranting today.

  148. “ being a very popular Sec of State will do that.”
    Back for a moment.
    Yes it will., especially if people don’t take their professed moral outrage over the Iraq War very seriously. 2003 was a pivotal moment in history and a significant fraction of the Democratic Party and of course most Republicans blew it. Libya was not a shining moment and neither was Syria. Yemen came after she left, but there is zero evidence she would have been dovish there.
    By and large, most Americans don’t care that much about foreign policy if we aren’t losing American lives This could even be a good thing if we didn’t have a foreign policy elite with megalomaniac delusions of moral grandeur and that is before Trump came along. But since we do have such people usually controlling things, we get these endless string of interventions and then interventions to solve the earlier interventions. Note the plan mentioned in my citation from the NYT Aleppo piece— if we had actually succeeded in toppling Assad, there was a plan to intervene to prevent the genocide that was likely going to occur as a result.
    Catastrophic success. Tulsi wasn’t harsh enough.
    The only genuinely good thing we’ve done over there was the Iranian nuclear treaty, which Trump tore up. Supporting the Kurds was arguably good, but we had to pull out sooner or later. Though not so abruptly and idiotically.
    Beinart has a piece up making a different criticism, not one I am comfortable with. But he says the plan of some Democrats to leave Afghanistan is essentially going to lead to the same results. The Taliban will take over.
    So I guess if we do want to be the world’s policeman, put it to a vote. And hold ourselves accountable when we commit war crimes. Neither will happen. Trump, in the meantime, is just a random, incompetent blithering idiot who is screwing up our already morally disastrous policies.
    I should do something besides ranting today.

  149. whatever the intent, Clinton’s feud with Gabbard has made her (Gabbard) more visible than anything her entire campaign has accomplished up to now. Whoever is running her campaign should immediately go out and play the lottery.
    so, perhaps an own goal, on Clinton’s part.
    Not an endorsement of Gabbard, she seems like kind of an odd duck. Just an expression of general puzzlement about Clinton deciding to pile on. Mostly it just seems to make her (Clinton) the heavy, throwing her weight around and beating up on the underdog.
    Syria strikes me as one of those situations where you’re buggered no matter what you do. Should we be involved at all? Whose side are we on? How many sides are there anyway, and how many of them are each of the various significant players on? I’m just surprised we’re not shooting at ourselves. Then again, maybe we are.
    Nonetheless, Trump appears to have achieved new heights in general impulsive what-the-hell-is-he-doing-now cluserfnckedness. Which coming from him is a high bar.
    It’s also really hard for me to say that the Kurds shouldn’t want their own state. Everybody in their neighborhood seems to want to kill them, hardly surprising they’d want a place of their own, that they could run as they see fit.
    Complicated, yes. Unlikely to actually ever happen, likewise yes. Nonetheless, completely understandable.
    Good luck to all.

  150. whatever the intent, Clinton’s feud with Gabbard has made her (Gabbard) more visible than anything her entire campaign has accomplished up to now. Whoever is running her campaign should immediately go out and play the lottery.
    so, perhaps an own goal, on Clinton’s part.
    Not an endorsement of Gabbard, she seems like kind of an odd duck. Just an expression of general puzzlement about Clinton deciding to pile on. Mostly it just seems to make her (Clinton) the heavy, throwing her weight around and beating up on the underdog.
    Syria strikes me as one of those situations where you’re buggered no matter what you do. Should we be involved at all? Whose side are we on? How many sides are there anyway, and how many of them are each of the various significant players on? I’m just surprised we’re not shooting at ourselves. Then again, maybe we are.
    Nonetheless, Trump appears to have achieved new heights in general impulsive what-the-hell-is-he-doing-now cluserfnckedness. Which coming from him is a high bar.
    It’s also really hard for me to say that the Kurds shouldn’t want their own state. Everybody in their neighborhood seems to want to kill them, hardly surprising they’d want a place of their own, that they could run as they see fit.
    Complicated, yes. Unlikely to actually ever happen, likewise yes. Nonetheless, completely understandable.
    Good luck to all.

  151. whatever the intent, Clinton’s feud with Gabbard has made her (Gabbard) more visible than anything her entire campaign has accomplished up to now. Whoever is running her campaign should immediately go out and play the lottery.
    so, perhaps an own goal, on Clinton’s part.
    So, Clinton didn’t mention any names, but suggested that people should be on guard that someone was being groomed as Putin’s Democratic pony. After having lost because of similar tactics in 2016, she’s just supposed to ignore it? We’re all just supposed to ignore it?
    I see. We should all just pretend she’s not really there, and let Tucker Carlson take over the messaging.

  152. whatever the intent, Clinton’s feud with Gabbard has made her (Gabbard) more visible than anything her entire campaign has accomplished up to now. Whoever is running her campaign should immediately go out and play the lottery.
    so, perhaps an own goal, on Clinton’s part.
    So, Clinton didn’t mention any names, but suggested that people should be on guard that someone was being groomed as Putin’s Democratic pony. After having lost because of similar tactics in 2016, she’s just supposed to ignore it? We’re all just supposed to ignore it?
    I see. We should all just pretend she’s not really there, and let Tucker Carlson take over the messaging.

  155. I’d say that whether or not Clinton is right on this (and I think she’s half right), her voicing it in this way is going to get people focusing on the wrong half of her half-right and end up burying what good her statement might have done. Judging by my FB feed, all she has done is rile up a lot of low-information independents to repost Gabbard’s condemnation of the DNC to the detriment of every viable Democratic candidate.

  156. I’d say that whether or not Clinton is right on this (and I think she’s half right), her voicing it in this way is going to get people focusing on the wrong half of her half-right and end up burying what good her statement might have done. Judging by my FB feed, all she has done is rile up a lot of low-information independents to repost Gabbard’s condemnation of the DNC to the detriment of every viable Democratic candidate.

  159. especially if people don’t take their professed moral outrage over the Iraq War very seriously.
    perhaps people don’t think the Iraq War was her fault. it’s an easy way to think, since she neither spearheaded the push for it nor drove a tank in it.
    but there is zero evidence she would have been dovish there.
    /chef’s kiss

  160. especially if people don’t take their professed moral outrage over the Iraq War very seriously.
    perhaps people don’t think the Iraq War was her fault. it’s an easy way to think, since she neither spearheaded the push for it nor drove a tank in it.
    but there is zero evidence she would have been dovish there.
    /chef’s kiss

  163. The Iraq war was promoted by Bush and Cheney as being necessary to remove Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam had previously shown himself only too willing to use.
    We now know that Bush was lying about the intelligence. But I don’t think it fair to blame Hillary and others for not having known in 2002 that Bush and Cheney were lying.
    If you think the war wasn’t justified even if what Bush and Cheney had said had been true, then you can fairly say that Hillary was wrong to vote to enable it.

  164. The Iraq war was promoted by Bush and Cheney as being necessary to remove Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam had previously shown himself only too willing to use.
    We now know that Bush was lying about the intelligence. But I don’t think it fair to blame Hillary and others for not having known in 2002 that Bush and Cheney were lying.
    If you think the war wasn’t justified even if what Bush and Cheney had said had been true, then you can fairly say that Hillary was wrong to vote to enable it.

  165. and I think she’s half right
    Not sure where she’s wrong. Maybe you could explain.
    Eyes on the prize, y’all.
    The technique of denying and/or ignoring Russian participation in 2016 was a disaster. What Clinton said might make some people (not die hard “burn-it-downers”) scrutinize things a bit more – like, say, if Gabbard runs third party.
    I get it that people want Clinton to STFU. But it might be wiser, if we want to keep our eyes on the prize, to tell R’s (Republicans and Russians) that they need to STFU instead. Just a novel thought.

  166. and I think she’s half right
    Not sure where she’s wrong. Maybe you could explain.
    Eyes on the prize, y’all.
    The technique of denying and/or ignoring Russian participation in 2016 was a disaster. What Clinton said might make some people (not die hard “burn-it-downers”) scrutinize things a bit more – like, say, if Gabbard runs third party.
    I get it that people want Clinton to STFU. But it might be wiser, if we want to keep our eyes on the prize, to tell R’s (Republicans and Russians) that they need to STFU instead. Just a novel thought.

  167. Clinton isn’t commenting on this blog as far as I can tell, so I don’t think anyone here gets to tell her to STFU. All we can do is discuss our thoughts on what she’s said, which will have pretty much no effect on anything that happens in the wider world.
    It’s one thing to disagree with what people write here and state your reasons for disagreeing. It’s another thing to continuously tell people what they are and aren’t allowed to write about (i.e. telling them, the people who are actually here trying to have conversations, to STFU about whatever it is they’re discussing). It’s tiresome.

  168. Clinton isn’t commenting on this blog as far as I can tell, so I don’t think anyone here gets to tell her to STFU. All we can do is discuss our thoughts on what she’s said, which will have pretty much no effect on anything that happens in the wider world.
    It’s one thing to disagree with what people write here and state your reasons for disagreeing. It’s another thing to continuously tell people what they are and aren’t allowed to write about (i.e. telling them, the people who are actually here trying to have conversations, to STFU about whatever it is they’re discussing). It’s tiresome.

  169. Cheney/Bush were so blatantly lying about almost everything in preparation for the war that to give them a benefit of the doubt on anything was imo completely unjustified.
    And that they were lying was shown long before most politicians had to commit to the endeavour.
    Imo Clinton (and most of her colleagues) did not vote for the war because they believed in what Cheney/Bush were selling but because they feared negative political consequences for themselves, if they would not.
    What they did not know was, how thoroughly the administration would botch the aftermath.
    Still, those few that had objected from the start got for years afterwards viciously smeared, with ‘would you prefer Saddam still being in power?’ among the mildest attacks.
    To be pro war at the time was an act of political cowardice but, unfortunately, a ‘prudent’ one as far as one’s political career was concerned. The political class also tends not to be forgiving to people who were right and showed backbone when the majority did not.
    From a German perspective: it took decades after WW2 for the German society to forgive those who actively resisted Hitler. Some got smeared for having had the ‘wrong’ motives (those who resisted from the left) others as rats trying to jump the sinking ship and those in the military simply as traitors that broke their oath. In the German armed forces the dispute about ‘tradition’ still has not ended (there recently was a nasty quarrel about busts in the navy’s hall of honor with protests against removal of an admiral who had sailors executed even post capitulation for questioning final victory a few dyas earlier and against the inclusion of the captain of the Graf Spee who preferred to save his crew instead of making a suicidal last stand).

  170. Cheney/Bush were so blatantly lying about almost everything in preparation for the war that to give them a benefit of the doubt on anything was imo completely unjustified.
    And that they were lying was shown long before most politicians had to commit to the endeavour.
    Imo Clinton (and most of her colleagues) did not vote for the war because they believed in what Cheney/Bush were selling but because they feared negative political consequences for themselves, if they would not.
    What they did not know was, how thoroughly the administration would botch the aftermath.
    Still, those few that had objected from the start got for years afterwards viciously smeared, with ‘would you prefer Saddam still being in power?’ among the mildest attacks.
    To be pro war at the time was an act of political cowardice but, unfortunately, a ‘prudent’ one as far as one’s political career was concerned. The political class also tends not to be forgiving to people who were right and showed backbone when the majority did not.
    From a German perspective: it took decades after WW2 for the German society to forgive those who actively resisted Hitler. Some got smeared for having had the ‘wrong’ motives (those who resisted from the left) others as rats trying to jump the sinking ship and those in the military simply as traitors that broke their oath. In the German armed forces the dispute about ‘tradition’ still has not ended (there recently was a nasty quarrel about busts in the navy’s hall of honor with protests against removal of an admiral who had sailors executed even post capitulation for questioning final victory a few dyas earlier and against the inclusion of the captain of the Graf Spee who preferred to save his crew instead of making a suicidal last stand).

  171. What hsh said.
    Also, I was searching for a link to a brilliant letter I just read, from Bertrand Russell to Sir Oswald Mosley refusing the latter’s lunch invitation (from a piece headed “How to refuse lunch with a fascist”) in order to see if by any chance my very frustrating inability to post links had changed, when I came across the following really excellent quote by Hannah Arendt. As many of you will recognise, it makess a point I am obsessed with, so I will try my experiment re posting links in a separate post.
    The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.

  172. What hsh said.
    Also, I was searching for a link to a brilliant letter I just read, from Bertrand Russell to Sir Oswald Mosley refusing the latter’s lunch invitation (from a piece headed “How to refuse lunch with a fascist”) in order to see if by any chance my very frustrating inability to post links had changed, when I came across the following really excellent quote by Hannah Arendt. As many of you will recognise, it makess a point I am obsessed with, so I will try my experiment re posting links in a separate post.
    The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.

  175. Nope, still can’t do it, it must be in the spam trap. If any of you IT geniuses can tell me if there’s anything I can do from my end to rectify it, please let me know!

  176. Nope, still can’t do it, it must be in the spam trap. If any of you IT geniuses can tell me if there’s anything I can do from my end to rectify it, please let me know!

  177. It’s one thing to disagree with what people write here and state your reasons for disagreeing. It’s another thing to continuously tell people what they are and aren’t allowed to write about (i.e. telling them, the people who are actually here trying to have conversations, to STFU about whatever it is they’re discussing). It’s tiresome.
    I haven’t told anyone what they’re allowed to talk or write about. Did I tell anyone here to STFU? I said generally R’s (Republicans and Russians) should be told to do so, as opposed to Clinton – if we actually want to “keep our eyes on the prize.”
    People are criticizing Clinton for speaking up about her suspicions about Russian interference. I disagree with that criticism. We tried the deny/ignore approach to Russian interference last time around. People don’t need to STFU about their criticism of Clinton. I just think what they say is misguided, just as you think what I say is misguided (although you mischaracterize it as trying to stifle people).
    If people want Clinton to STFU, they should tell her to do that, and write about it here. It’s a discussion. What do you think, hairshirthedonist? Do you think that Clinton should not speak her mind in public about her suspicions that Putin is supporting a Democratic candidate named Tulsi Gabbard? Or is it tiresome for you to contemplate that subject?

  178. It’s one thing to disagree with what people write here and state your reasons for disagreeing. It’s another thing to continuously tell people what they are and aren’t allowed to write about (i.e. telling them, the people who are actually here trying to have conversations, to STFU about whatever it is they’re discussing). It’s tiresome.
    I haven’t told anyone what they’re allowed to talk or write about. Did I tell anyone here to STFU? I said generally R’s (Republicans and Russians) should be told to do so, as opposed to Clinton – if we actually want to “keep our eyes on the prize.”
    People are criticizing Clinton for speaking up about her suspicions about Russian interference. I disagree with that criticism. We tried the deny/ignore approach to Russian interference last time around. People don’t need to STFU about their criticism of Clinton. I just think what they say is misguided, just as you think what I say is misguided (although you mischaracterize it as trying to stifle people).
    If people want Clinton to STFU, they should tell her to do that, and write about it here. It’s a discussion. What do you think, hairshirthedonist? Do you think that Clinton should not speak her mind in public about her suspicions that Putin is supporting a Democratic candidate named Tulsi Gabbard? Or is it tiresome for you to contemplate that subject?

  179. I think this article gets to what troubled me about Hillary’s intervention.
    (Though the author rather undercuts his case by the entirely unnecessary poke with “self-absorbed”….)
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/hillary-clinton-elevating-tulsi-gabbard/600370/
    …Even if one shares Clinton’s suspicions of Stein and Gabbard—and, as a longtime observer of Soviet and Russian government, I do—her decision to inject herself into the 2020 election was a mistake. It was exactly the kind of clumsy, self-absorbed move that, despite Clinton’s lifetime in the public eye, revealed a total misunderstanding of how politics work. Far from exposing or thwarting Gabbard, as Clinton loyalists want to believe, the former secretary of state overshot the mark by making an accusation without proof. Gabbard will now dismiss real concerns about her as just so much conspiracy theorizing…
    …So, to use a famous Soviet expression, what is to be done? If Gabbard shows up at the Democratic convention, she should be greeted politely—and then resolutely ignored otherwise. But that should also be the strategy right now. As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.

  180. I think this article gets to what troubled me about Hillary’s intervention.
    (Though the author rather undercuts his case by the entirely unnecessary poke with “self-absorbed”….)
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/hillary-clinton-elevating-tulsi-gabbard/600370/
    …Even if one shares Clinton’s suspicions of Stein and Gabbard—and, as a longtime observer of Soviet and Russian government, I do—her decision to inject herself into the 2020 election was a mistake. It was exactly the kind of clumsy, self-absorbed move that, despite Clinton’s lifetime in the public eye, revealed a total misunderstanding of how politics work. Far from exposing or thwarting Gabbard, as Clinton loyalists want to believe, the former secretary of state overshot the mark by making an accusation without proof. Gabbard will now dismiss real concerns about her as just so much conspiracy theorizing…
    …So, to use a famous Soviet expression, what is to be done? If Gabbard shows up at the Democratic convention, she should be greeted politely—and then resolutely ignored otherwise. But that should also be the strategy right now. As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.

  181. A direct analogy would be the way in which his opponents get drawn into arguments with Trump over his more petty pronouncements.
    It’s just not worth it; stick to what genuinely matters.

  182. A direct analogy would be the way in which his opponents get drawn into arguments with Trump over his more petty pronouncements.
    It’s just not worth it; stick to what genuinely matters.

  183. Now GftNC chimes in on the accusation that I’m telling people to STFU.
    I asked nous to “please explain”. STFU? Nope.
    I engaged what I thought was a conversation with russell about his admonition to “keep your eyes on the prize.” STFU? Nope.
    Carry on,

  184. Now GftNC chimes in on the accusation that I’m telling people to STFU.
    I asked nous to “please explain”. STFU? Nope.
    I engaged what I thought was a conversation with russell about his admonition to “keep your eyes on the prize.” STFU? Nope.
    Carry on,

  187. I was unaware of the brilliant Russell (Bertrand) letter, for which thanks, GFNC.
    It is a model I will put away for future use.

  188. I was unaware of the brilliant Russell (Bertrand) letter, for which thanks, GFNC.
    It is a model I will put away for future use.

  189. her decision to inject herself into the 2020 election was a mistake
    everyone please note that not for one day in the past three years has Trump not talked about Clinton. and part of his Ukraine scheme is to find her “missing emails”.
    if i was her, i might have framed my remarks about Gabbard a bit differently. but she makes a point a lot of people really do need to accept: Russia is still out there doing its thing. the last time Russia helped to give us Trump; why the fnck would we shrug off their machinations now?

  190. her decision to inject herself into the 2020 election was a mistake
    everyone please note that not for one day in the past three years has Trump not talked about Clinton. and part of his Ukraine scheme is to find her “missing emails”.
    if i was her, i might have framed my remarks about Gabbard a bit differently. but she makes a point a lot of people really do need to accept: Russia is still out there doing its thing. the last time Russia helped to give us Trump; why the fnck would we shrug off their machinations now?

  191. WRT my comment that Clinton was half right. I think she is correct to point out that the IRA is trying to use sock puppets and bots to give Gabbard more prominence. But to focus on How they are “grooming” a candidate puts attention on the person to which the disinformation is being attached and invites speculation about the intentions of that person as if they are the problem and not the trolls. And it puts the onus on the person being used and not on our own woeful media literacy, reading comprehension, and hunger for partisan conflict.

  192. WRT my comment that Clinton was half right. I think she is correct to point out that the IRA is trying to use sock puppets and bots to give Gabbard more prominence. But to focus on How they are “grooming” a candidate puts attention on the person to which the disinformation is being attached and invites speculation about the intentions of that person as if they are the problem and not the trolls. And it puts the onus on the person being used and not on our own woeful media literacy, reading comprehension, and hunger for partisan conflict.

  193. Russia is still out there doing its thing. the last time Russia helped to give us Trump; why the fnck would we shrug off their machinations now?
    Agreed. The only question is how best to oppose those machinations.
    Nigel: de nada!

  194. Russia is still out there doing its thing. the last time Russia helped to give us Trump; why the fnck would we shrug off their machinations now?
    Agreed. The only question is how best to oppose those machinations.
    Nigel: de nada!

  195. Russia is still out there doing its thing. the last time Russia helped to give us Trump; why the fnck would we shrug off their machinations now?
    Agreed. The only question is how best to oppose those machinations.
    Nigel: de nada!

  196. Russia is still out there doing its thing. the last time Russia helped to give us Trump; why the fnck would we shrug off their machinations now?
    Agreed. The only question is how best to oppose those machinations.
    Nigel: de nada!

  199. And it puts the onus on the person being used and not on our own woeful media literacy, reading comprehension, and hunger for partisan conflict.
    In theory, this is a reasonable objection, as is the Tom Nichols quote that Nigel posted. In practice, we are a divided country and the only people calling for a moderate, issue-driven discourse are mainstream Democrats who were reluctant in 2016 to draw too much attention to Putin’s antics because it would seem like a conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory. And the voting public isn’t necessarily smart enough to figure out what’s happening without it being spelled out clearly. Requiring Hillary Clinton to maintain the perfect rhetorical balance when she sees 2016 repeating itself is a big ask.

  200. And it puts the onus on the person being used and not on our own woeful media literacy, reading comprehension, and hunger for partisan conflict.
    In theory, this is a reasonable objection, as is the Tom Nichols quote that Nigel posted. In practice, we are a divided country and the only people calling for a moderate, issue-driven discourse are mainstream Democrats who were reluctant in 2016 to draw too much attention to Putin’s antics because it would seem like a conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory. And the voting public isn’t necessarily smart enough to figure out what’s happening without it being spelled out clearly. Requiring Hillary Clinton to maintain the perfect rhetorical balance when she sees 2016 repeating itself is a big ask.

  201. I think she is correct to point out that the IRA is trying to use sock puppets and bots to give Gabbard more prominence.
    And, in effect, did it for them.

  202. I think she is correct to point out that the IRA is trying to use sock puppets and bots to give Gabbard more prominence.
    And, in effect, did it for them.

  207. And, in effect, did it for them.
    When people push back against bad actors, it does give those bad actors more prominence. I guess covering up the crimes is a better strategy. Gabbard isn’t yet running as a third party candidate. When she announces that dramatic move, people should be on notice.

  208. And, in effect, did it for them.
    When people push back against bad actors, it does give those bad actors more prominence. I guess covering up the crimes is a better strategy. Gabbard isn’t yet running as a third party candidate. When she announces that dramatic move, people should be on notice.

  209. So GftNC — your typing out of the html looks fine, and I copied it above and it worked, so I have no idea what’s going on. Have you tried it from more than one computer? A complete shot in the dark, but have you tried it from more than one browser?

  210. So GftNC — your typing out of the html looks fine, and I copied it above and it worked, so I have no idea what’s going on. Have you tried it from more than one computer? A complete shot in the dark, but have you tried it from more than one browser?

  211. Sorry for the sidetracking, just doing more experiments. GftNC, I took your original comment out of the spam filter and published it and that worked too. Your IP address isn’t in the blocked list. I dunno.

  212. Sorry for the sidetracking, just doing more experiments. GftNC, I took your original comment out of the spam filter and published it and that worked too. Your IP address isn’t in the blocked list. I dunno.

  213. Janie, thanks so much for looking into this! I can’t easily do it from another computer at the moment, but I will try now from another browser and let you know.

  214. Janie, thanks so much for looking into this! I can’t easily do it from another computer at the moment, but I will try now from another browser and let you know.

  217. OK, I just tried from Explorer (I normally use Chrome), and the same thing happened. I’ll try and see if I can fire up my old computer and try again….

  218. OK, I just tried from Explorer (I normally use Chrome), and the same thing happened. I’ll try and see if I can fire up my old computer and try again….

  221. I’m now posting from my old computer, and the same thing happened again. I am at a complete loss.

  222. I’m now posting from my old computer, and the same thing happened again. I am at a complete loss.

  223. Thanks for the link, JDT. I need to read Sontag’s the three steps to refuting any argument because I’ve never won any.
    Regards,

  224. Thanks for the link, JDT. I need to read Sontag’s the three steps to refuting any argument because I’ve never won any.
    Regards,

  225. I’m giving up, and will have to go on relying on the kindness of strangers to post my links (not strangers at all, of course, but ObWi compadres). It certainly concentrates the mind and makes one only post links one is absolutely determined to share! Thanks for trying, Janie.

  226. I’m giving up, and will have to go on relying on the kindness of strangers to post my links (not strangers at all, of course, but ObWi compadres). It certainly concentrates the mind and makes one only post links one is absolutely determined to share! Thanks for trying, Janie.

  227. what happens if you ditch the “http” part, like so? people could then just copy and paste your links at least
    twitter.com/HamishH1931

  228. what happens if you ditch the “http” part, like so? people could then just copy and paste your links at least
    twitter.com/HamishH1931

  229. Thanks, novakant, will try in due course when back at a computer as opposed to accursed phone on which I can’t even copy and paste!

  230. Thanks, novakant, will try in due course when back at a computer as opposed to accursed phone on which I can’t even copy and paste!

  231. CharlesWT gets to the heart of my objection. If the Russian strategy is to push and exacerbate factionalism, then it’s counterproductive to reinforce those factional divides. At that point Clinton becomes an asset as well.
    Not that it helps a bit that our media is so deeply invested in the sports media model of political coverage that they are an even bigger asset.
    This situation demands nuanced analysis and commentary and tremendous message discipline, and it requires that the media serve the public good.
    Which is why we are doomed to our poo-flinging social media future.

  232. CharlesWT gets to the heart of my objection. If the Russian strategy is to push and exacerbate factionalism, then it’s counterproductive to reinforce those factional divides. At that point Clinton becomes an asset as well.
    Not that it helps a bit that our media is so deeply invested in the sports media model of political coverage that they are an even bigger asset.
    This situation demands nuanced analysis and commentary and tremendous message discipline, and it requires that the media serve the public good.
    Which is why we are doomed to our poo-flinging social media future.

  233. @Hartmet: In the German armed forces the dispute about ‘tradition’ still has not ended
    We can understand. After all, we still have big political fights over honoring traitors (Confederate generals) from a rebellion a century and a half ago. Even when we have to totally falsify the reasons for that rebellion.

  234. @Hartmet: In the German armed forces the dispute about ‘tradition’ still has not ended
    We can understand. After all, we still have big political fights over honoring traitors (Confederate generals) from a rebellion a century and a half ago. Even when we have to totally falsify the reasons for that rebellion.

  235. This situation demands nuanced analysis and commentary and tremendous message discipline, it requires that the media serve the public good
    is there a plan B?

  236. This situation demands nuanced analysis and commentary and tremendous message discipline, it requires that the media serve the public good
    is there a plan B?

  237. If the Russian strategy is to push and exacerbate factionalism, then it’s counterproductive to reinforce those factional divides. At that point Clinton becomes an asset as well.
    There’s a certain amount of factionalism built into a system of elections, which are competitive enterprises. Voicing one’s opinion about a candidate seems well within the established Constitutional system. We’re not assets when we describe our preferences and objections, or the reasons therefor.

  238. If the Russian strategy is to push and exacerbate factionalism, then it’s counterproductive to reinforce those factional divides. At that point Clinton becomes an asset as well.
    There’s a certain amount of factionalism built into a system of elections, which are competitive enterprises. Voicing one’s opinion about a candidate seems well within the established Constitutional system. We’re not assets when we describe our preferences and objections, or the reasons therefor.

  239. I haven’t been paying close attention to the details of this particular dust-up. But how feasible would it have been for Clinton to voice concern about Russian interference in 2020, mention them supporting a possible independent/third-party candidacy, and not float the name of someone who might be such a candidate? In other words, leave Gabbard out of it.
    Maybe it wasn’t possible in the circumstances. But at least with 20/20 hindsight, it seems like that might have been more effective at making the point.

  240. I haven’t been paying close attention to the details of this particular dust-up. But how feasible would it have been for Clinton to voice concern about Russian interference in 2020, mention them supporting a possible independent/third-party candidacy, and not float the name of someone who might be such a candidate? In other words, leave Gabbard out of it.
    Maybe it wasn’t possible in the circumstances. But at least with 20/20 hindsight, it seems like that might have been more effective at making the point.

  241. If the Russian strategy is to push and exacerbate factionalism, then it’s counterproductive to reinforce those factional divides. At that point Clinton becomes an asset as well.
    If pointing out what the Russians are doing makes you an asset, what does silence make you?
    Damned one way if you do, damned another way if you don’t, that’s what.

  242. If the Russian strategy is to push and exacerbate factionalism, then it’s counterproductive to reinforce those factional divides. At that point Clinton becomes an asset as well.
    If pointing out what the Russians are doing makes you an asset, what does silence make you?
    Damned one way if you do, damned another way if you don’t, that’s what.

  243. wj, Clinton did not in fact mention Gabbard’s name. She did say “she.” Other people (and bots, no doubt) put Gabbard in the frame.

  244. wj, Clinton did not in fact mention Gabbard’s name. She did say “she.” Other people (and bots, no doubt) put Gabbard in the frame.

  245. In other words, leave Gabbard out of it.
    i agree, but really i don’t know if that was possible, since only one of the candidates has recently inspired columns about being a possible Russia-backed* spoiler: Gabbard. even if Clinton was vague about it, people would put 2 & 2 together soon enough.
    * – even if the alleged Russia’s assistance is presumably uninvited

  246. In other words, leave Gabbard out of it.
    i agree, but really i don’t know if that was possible, since only one of the candidates has recently inspired columns about being a possible Russia-backed* spoiler: Gabbard. even if Clinton was vague about it, people would put 2 & 2 together soon enough.
    * – even if the alleged Russia’s assistance is presumably uninvited

  247. And our clickbait media.
    From CNN a couple of days ago, under the headline: “Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are ‘grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run.”

    (CNN)Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently “grooming” a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.
    The comment appears to be directed at Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of being cozy with Russia in the past.
    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. “She’s the favorite of the Russians.”
    Clinton never names Gabbard…

    And yet look at the headline.

  248. And our clickbait media.
    From CNN a couple of days ago, under the headline: “Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are ‘grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run.”

    (CNN)Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently “grooming” a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.
    The comment appears to be directed at Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of being cozy with Russia in the past.
    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. “She’s the favorite of the Russians.”
    Clinton never names Gabbard…

    And yet look at the headline.

  249. Here’s how I think Clinton should have handled it. Say that analysts have seen that the bots and trolls have been rallying to support “even some Democratic candidates” in order to drive wedges into factions. Say that she is sure that none of the candidates want to be used by the Russians and that all of them have to be careful with how they speak about each other because even their biggest rival in the primary is a better choice than the man sitting in the Oval Office who has said out loud on multiple occasions that he’s willing to be used by the Russians so long as he gets votes out of it.
    “Which is why I get distressed when I hear candidates for our party’s nomination play into those conspiracy theories about the DNC. The DNC is not the party pushing these divisions. That comes from outside.”

  250. Here’s how I think Clinton should have handled it. Say that analysts have seen that the bots and trolls have been rallying to support “even some Democratic candidates” in order to drive wedges into factions. Say that she is sure that none of the candidates want to be used by the Russians and that all of them have to be careful with how they speak about each other because even their biggest rival in the primary is a better choice than the man sitting in the Oval Office who has said out loud on multiple occasions that he’s willing to be used by the Russians so long as he gets votes out of it.
    “Which is why I get distressed when I hear candidates for our party’s nomination play into those conspiracy theories about the DNC. The DNC is not the party pushing these divisions. That comes from outside.”

  255. nous FTW
    Yes.
    Too bad there’s no viable pathway to putting conflict work on the curriculum.
    In the meantime, we go to life as the species we are.

  256. nous FTW
    Yes.
    Too bad there’s no viable pathway to putting conflict work on the curriculum.
    In the meantime, we go to life as the species we are.

  259. I agree that what nous said would have been most politic.
    But shouldn’t Gabbard be called out, at least by the other candidates, on things like this? I don’t think that her candidacy should be taken at face value. No one, apparently, wants to hear this from Clinton, but someone should do it so more assertively than a tweet here and there.

  260. I agree that what nous said would have been most politic.
    But shouldn’t Gabbard be called out, at least by the other candidates, on things like this? I don’t think that her candidacy should be taken at face value. No one, apparently, wants to hear this from Clinton, but someone should do it so more assertively than a tweet here and there.

  261. But shouldn’t Gabbard be called out, at least by the other candidates, on things like this
    … or about going on Tucker Carlson’s show to complain about HRC.
    even if she’s not a Russian stooge, she’s acting like a Fox News stooge.

  262. But shouldn’t Gabbard be called out, at least by the other candidates, on things like this
    … or about going on Tucker Carlson’s show to complain about HRC.
    even if she’s not a Russian stooge, she’s acting like a Fox News stooge.

  263. I don’t necessarily see blaming Gabbard for “having full Kremlin support.” It may say something about her positions. But it isn’t, in itself, her fault. The Kremlin might agree with her on some things for entirely different reasons than she holds those positions. For example (I have no idea what Gabbard’s views on the subject are) both a US candidate and the Kremlin could view China’s activities in central Asia with distinct lack of enthusiasm.
    Hiring someone like Chris Cooper of Potomoc Square Group, on the other hand, goes beyond mere poor judgement. I’s not like there aren’t lots of political consultants available. And who you choose to hire, especially to fill high level positions, says something about you.
    And praising Assad? I’m at a loss to see how any person of good will and good judgement could do that.

  264. I don’t necessarily see blaming Gabbard for “having full Kremlin support.” It may say something about her positions. But it isn’t, in itself, her fault. The Kremlin might agree with her on some things for entirely different reasons than she holds those positions. For example (I have no idea what Gabbard’s views on the subject are) both a US candidate and the Kremlin could view China’s activities in central Asia with distinct lack of enthusiasm.
    Hiring someone like Chris Cooper of Potomoc Square Group, on the other hand, goes beyond mere poor judgement. I’s not like there aren’t lots of political consultants available. And who you choose to hire, especially to fill high level positions, says something about you.
    And praising Assad? I’m at a loss to see how any person of good will and good judgement could do that.

  265. i don’t think the Kremlin is interested in Gabbard (allegedly) for her positions. it’s more that she’s decided to make the Democratic party one of her chief enemies. that’s why Fox loves her, too. and there’s a lot of love for that point of view out in the lefty-left where the evil DNC stalks the night, somehow forcing people to vote as it demands. she’s not necessarily of the left, but she’ll get some love for being an enemy of the same enemy.

  266. i don’t think the Kremlin is interested in Gabbard (allegedly) for her positions. it’s more that she’s decided to make the Democratic party one of her chief enemies. that’s why Fox loves her, too. and there’s a lot of love for that point of view out in the lefty-left where the evil DNC stalks the night, somehow forcing people to vote as it demands. she’s not necessarily of the left, but she’ll get some love for being an enemy of the same enemy.

  267. There is nothing wrong with calling out Gabbard for her bad policy or for her love affair with authoritarians. And it’s also fine to call her out for acting as if her own party is more of a danger to the US than is the ongoing constitutional crisis being abetted by the GOP. There are plenty of ways to call her out on those things without the Manchurian Candidate overtones of calling her an “asset.” She can be an idiot all on her own for her own idiotic reasons. And the Democrats don’t need to follow in the footsteps of the GOP by electing their own loose cannon.
    No need to play Maddow and connect the dots like it’s the plot of a thriller. Point out that those narratives play into the hands of the Russian trolls and keep your own hands clean. Point out the effect and the beneficiaries of that effect.
    After a few outbursts people will draw their own conclusions about Gabbard’s motivations. Let them.

  268. There is nothing wrong with calling out Gabbard for her bad policy or for her love affair with authoritarians. And it’s also fine to call her out for acting as if her own party is more of a danger to the US than is the ongoing constitutional crisis being abetted by the GOP. There are plenty of ways to call her out on those things without the Manchurian Candidate overtones of calling her an “asset.” She can be an idiot all on her own for her own idiotic reasons. And the Democrats don’t need to follow in the footsteps of the GOP by electing their own loose cannon.
    No need to play Maddow and connect the dots like it’s the plot of a thriller. Point out that those narratives play into the hands of the Russian trolls and keep your own hands clean. Point out the effect and the beneficiaries of that effect.
    After a few outbursts people will draw their own conclusions about Gabbard’s motivations. Let them.

  269. Nick Merrill pretty much confirmed Clinton ws talking about Gabbard and it was obvious right from the start. This stuff has been floating around for months.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-russia-grooming-3rd-party-candidate-u-s-n1068786
    The Russian bot meme is liberal Democratic McCarthyism. Yes, the Russians support people who criticize the US. They always have. They liked to point to our civil rights issues during the Jim Crow era and the response by white southerners was that this was divisive propaganda from communist agitators. And they were right. It was also true. A few Americans were attracted by communism and there really was a massive human rights problem in the US. Similarly, the US foreign policy elite really does think in terms of missionary work conducted with high explosives and whatever her other flaws ( which keep me from supporting her), Gabbard is the one pointing this out. Our political culture is too dishonest to have serious discussions on that issue. So they label people as Assadists. Similarly, if you opposed the Iraq War you were a Saddam lover. If you questioned any part of what was said about Saddam you were an apologist for his crimes.
    As for Clinton and other Democrats who supported the Iraq invasion, I partly agree with Hartmut. It was a cowardly political calculation. But in the case of Clinton and some others, they are also hawks. Clinton was still deciding in 2007 whether she should be a war opponent as her first presidential campaign was starting. There was a NYT article about that at the time
    The idea that she was fooled by Bush is risible. That would make her an idiot. Literally millions of people could see that the hysteria over WMDs was fake. Powell had as much admitted the Iraqis were contained before 9/11. I remember some of this, though the details are now fuzzy. But sure, the great foreign policy minds of the Democratic Party were tricked by Bush. Fine. Don’t run for freaking President. Retire and do the sort of work Jimmy Carter has done as an ex politician.
    We would be a much better country if we were less tolerant of the endless hypocritical bull crap politicians spout on serious issues. Instead our pundits and party hacks encourage people to look for Russians under our beds. Tulsi said both parties are partly responsible for the carnage in Syria. Oh my, Russia says that too. Pass the smelling salts.

  270. Nick Merrill pretty much confirmed Clinton ws talking about Gabbard and it was obvious right from the start. This stuff has been floating around for months.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-russia-grooming-3rd-party-candidate-u-s-n1068786
    The Russian bot meme is liberal Democratic McCarthyism. Yes, the Russians support people who criticize the US. They always have. They liked to point to our civil rights issues during the Jim Crow era and the response by white southerners was that this was divisive propaganda from communist agitators. And they were right. It was also true. A few Americans were attracted by communism and there really was a massive human rights problem in the US. Similarly, the US foreign policy elite really does think in terms of missionary work conducted with high explosives and whatever her other flaws ( which keep me from supporting her), Gabbard is the one pointing this out. Our political culture is too dishonest to have serious discussions on that issue. So they label people as Assadists. Similarly, if you opposed the Iraq War you were a Saddam lover. If you questioned any part of what was said about Saddam you were an apologist for his crimes.
    As for Clinton and other Democrats who supported the Iraq invasion, I partly agree with Hartmut. It was a cowardly political calculation. But in the case of Clinton and some others, they are also hawks. Clinton was still deciding in 2007 whether she should be a war opponent as her first presidential campaign was starting. There was a NYT article about that at the time
    The idea that she was fooled by Bush is risible. That would make her an idiot. Literally millions of people could see that the hysteria over WMDs was fake. Powell had as much admitted the Iraqis were contained before 9/11. I remember some of this, though the details are now fuzzy. But sure, the great foreign policy minds of the Democratic Party were tricked by Bush. Fine. Don’t run for freaking President. Retire and do the sort of work Jimmy Carter has done as an ex politician.
    We would be a much better country if we were less tolerant of the endless hypocritical bull crap politicians spout on serious issues. Instead our pundits and party hacks encourage people to look for Russians under our beds. Tulsi said both parties are partly responsible for the carnage in Syria. Oh my, Russia says that too. Pass the smelling salts.

  271. In 2002, Tony Blair agreed with Bush. I assumed, naively enough, that Blair wouldn’t be peddling lies. It turns out that I was wrong, but I won’t blame anyone else for having been taken in.
    __
    The Amin Maalouf reference is welcome. I recommend his novels.

  272. In 2002, Tony Blair agreed with Bush. I assumed, naively enough, that Blair wouldn’t be peddling lies. It turns out that I was wrong, but I won’t blame anyone else for having been taken in.
    __
    The Amin Maalouf reference is welcome. I recommend his novels.

  275. There are plenty of ways to call her out on those things without the Manchurian Candidate overtones of calling her an “asset.”
    Democrats pull so many punches that most people in 2016 did not know that Trump was working for Putin, despite Manafort’s maneuvering at the Republican convention, and all of the other things that were in plain sight. People still deny it, despite Helsinki and other events that make it obvious. Trump is working for Putin. That doesn’t prohibit him from also working for himself. But he’s not working for us. The “American people” sometimes don’t do subtlety all that well.
    Of course, Clinton saying what is apparent about Gabbard is a new Clinton scandal. Upside down world.
    All that said, you’re probably right. We should be much more scripted! But, then we’re too scripted!

  276. There are plenty of ways to call her out on those things without the Manchurian Candidate overtones of calling her an “asset.”
    Democrats pull so many punches that most people in 2016 did not know that Trump was working for Putin, despite Manafort’s maneuvering at the Republican convention, and all of the other things that were in plain sight. People still deny it, despite Helsinki and other events that make it obvious. Trump is working for Putin. That doesn’t prohibit him from also working for himself. But he’s not working for us. The “American people” sometimes don’t do subtlety all that well.
    Of course, Clinton saying what is apparent about Gabbard is a new Clinton scandal. Upside down world.
    All that said, you’re probably right. We should be much more scripted! But, then we’re too scripted!

  277. On the subject of HRC and what she should and shouldn’t do, I realise it’s comparatively trivial but I hope the consensus here is not against HRC’s parody of Trump’s letter to Erdogan? It’s very funny, and personally I can’t see it doing the Dems’ prospects any harm. Am I wrong?

  278. On the subject of HRC and what she should and shouldn’t do, I realise it’s comparatively trivial but I hope the consensus here is not against HRC’s parody of Trump’s letter to Erdogan? It’s very funny, and personally I can’t see it doing the Dems’ prospects any harm. Am I wrong?

  279. well, it’s something Clinton did. so i’m sure there will be objections.
    i liked it, though.
    she got millions more votes than Trump. let her cheerlead if she wants.

  280. well, it’s something Clinton did. so i’m sure there will be objections.
    i liked it, though.
    she got millions more votes than Trump. let her cheerlead if she wants.

  281. Yes, well, the problem with the Trump/Russia narrative is not that the Dems didn’t punch hard enough. Too much effort was spent trying to establish “co-ordination” when that is the simplest place to sow doubt.
    Donald’s study of the Russian interference shows that clearly enough. Showing that the effect of the interference does not deviate from the underlying uncertainty does not show that the interference was ineffective, just that the signal wasn’t discernible from the noise at the macro level.
    The problem is not whether or not Trump coordinated with Russia. The problem is that whether or not there was coordination, a significant chunk of the public discourse is being driven by trolls using disinformation to erode our sense of common cause. That will continue unabated even if Trump is removed.
    Which is not to say that Trump doesn’t matter. He needs to be removed because his actions in office are damaging the US. I’m just saying that removing him will not remove the influence exerted by the IRA, or by freelance trolls in Romania seeking clicks for ad revenue, or by alt-right assholes and threepers. The memes will change, but the buttons that are being pushed remain, and it’s those buttons we need to work to disable.

  282. Yes, well, the problem with the Trump/Russia narrative is not that the Dems didn’t punch hard enough. Too much effort was spent trying to establish “co-ordination” when that is the simplest place to sow doubt.
    Donald’s study of the Russian interference shows that clearly enough. Showing that the effect of the interference does not deviate from the underlying uncertainty does not show that the interference was ineffective, just that the signal wasn’t discernible from the noise at the macro level.
    The problem is not whether or not Trump coordinated with Russia. The problem is that whether or not there was coordination, a significant chunk of the public discourse is being driven by trolls using disinformation to erode our sense of common cause. That will continue unabated even if Trump is removed.
    Which is not to say that Trump doesn’t matter. He needs to be removed because his actions in office are damaging the US. I’m just saying that removing him will not remove the influence exerted by the IRA, or by freelance trolls in Romania seeking clicks for ad revenue, or by alt-right assholes and threepers. The memes will change, but the buttons that are being pushed remain, and it’s those buttons we need to work to disable.

  283. Which is not to say that Trump doesn’t matter. He needs to be removed because his actions in office are damaging the US. I’m just saying that removing him will not remove the influence exerted by the IRA, or by freelance trolls in Romania seeking clicks for ad revenue, or by alt-right assholes and threepers.
    Hope you’re sitting down, nous. Because you’re having a conservative Republican agree with you entirely here. Because, after all, it’s exactly true. (As sapient noted, it’s an upside-down world….;-)

  284. Which is not to say that Trump doesn’t matter. He needs to be removed because his actions in office are damaging the US. I’m just saying that removing him will not remove the influence exerted by the IRA, or by freelance trolls in Romania seeking clicks for ad revenue, or by alt-right assholes and threepers.
    Hope you’re sitting down, nous. Because you’re having a conservative Republican agree with you entirely here. Because, after all, it’s exactly true. (As sapient noted, it’s an upside-down world….;-)

  285. The problem is not whether or not Trump coordinated with Russia.
    it kindof is because coordination of that kind would clearly be illegal, and worthy of impeachment. it’s something that the country needed to know. and, the investigation was done by a Republican, under a Republican DOJ. and, if it wasn’t for departmental restrictions, Trump would be charged with several counts of obstruction.
    sure, trolls will exist.
    we need to combat their influence. one thing that can help is to tell other countries that we’re not going to stand for them interfering in our democracies.
    does the US do it to other countries? yes. we should stop (and this could be a good inflection point for us). does that make it OK for others to do it to us? well, if it’s bad when we do it, it’s bad when they do it. and one can’t be angry about the former and not the latter just because it feels good to complain about the US, or whatever.
    assholes on the internet will persist. but state-sponsored trolling shouldn’t be tolerated.
    or maybe it should. everything’s fair. fuck it.

  286. The problem is not whether or not Trump coordinated with Russia.
    it kindof is because coordination of that kind would clearly be illegal, and worthy of impeachment. it’s something that the country needed to know. and, the investigation was done by a Republican, under a Republican DOJ. and, if it wasn’t for departmental restrictions, Trump would be charged with several counts of obstruction.
    sure, trolls will exist.
    we need to combat their influence. one thing that can help is to tell other countries that we’re not going to stand for them interfering in our democracies.
    does the US do it to other countries? yes. we should stop (and this could be a good inflection point for us). does that make it OK for others to do it to us? well, if it’s bad when we do it, it’s bad when they do it. and one can’t be angry about the former and not the latter just because it feels good to complain about the US, or whatever.
    assholes on the internet will persist. but state-sponsored trolling shouldn’t be tolerated.
    or maybe it should. everything’s fair. fuck it.

  287. Do not confuse “does not matter” as a political reality with “does not matter” as a rhetorical strategy.
    Coordination absolutely would matter if there was a smoking gun. But as things stand now, banging on the “coordination” monkey is a counterproductive rhetorical strategy.

  288. Do not confuse “does not matter” as a political reality with “does not matter” as a rhetorical strategy.
    Coordination absolutely would matter if there was a smoking gun. But as things stand now, banging on the “coordination” monkey is a counterproductive rhetorical strategy.

  291. But shouldn’t Gabbard be called out, at least by the other candidates, on things like this? I don’t think that her candidacy should be taken at face value.
    I think the last score or so of posts are pretty good support for the suggestion that the rest of the candidates, and Hillary herself, should roundly…. ignore Gabbard.
    To do otherwise is to give her the publicity she wants.
    Leave it to journalists, and if need be, surrogates. Don’t dignify the nonsense with a comment. That’s how Trump got to be taken seriously, bad joke that he is.

  292. But shouldn’t Gabbard be called out, at least by the other candidates, on things like this? I don’t think that her candidacy should be taken at face value.
    I think the last score or so of posts are pretty good support for the suggestion that the rest of the candidates, and Hillary herself, should roundly…. ignore Gabbard.
    To do otherwise is to give her the publicity she wants.
    Leave it to journalists, and if need be, surrogates. Don’t dignify the nonsense with a comment. That’s how Trump got to be taken seriously, bad joke that he is.

  293. but state-sponsored trolling shouldn’t be tolerated.
    Of course not – but while Trump is in the White House, and has a Senate and Justice Department in thrall to him, it pretty well will be.
    Which is why wining is important.

  294. but state-sponsored trolling shouldn’t be tolerated.
    Of course not – but while Trump is in the White House, and has a Senate and Justice Department in thrall to him, it pretty well will be.
    Which is why wining is important.

  295. Yes, well, the problem with the Trump/Russia narrative is not that the Dems didn’t punch hard enough. Too much effort was spent trying to establish “co-ordination” when that is the simplest place to sow doubt.
    Yes. That was an egregious tactical mistake on the Dem’s part. The air going out of the impeachment balloon when the Mueller Report was released was palpable.
    I really do not give a rat’s ass about Tulsi Gabbard, especially as some of my leftier-than-thou acquaintances are praising her to the skies for her so-called “anti-imperialism”. As I have previously pointed out, her anti-war cred comes from a very strange place.
    And I would agree with cleek that policies should be adopted to combat state sponsored trollery. But, to steal a leaf from those who so blithely dismiss public policy to adopt a system of government run health care—show me your detailed plan.
    Shoe, meet other foot.
    Dismantling Facebook might be a start. Telling Russia that we “are not going to stand” for such interference does not strike me as an effective response.

  296. Yes, well, the problem with the Trump/Russia narrative is not that the Dems didn’t punch hard enough. Too much effort was spent trying to establish “co-ordination” when that is the simplest place to sow doubt.
    Yes. That was an egregious tactical mistake on the Dem’s part. The air going out of the impeachment balloon when the Mueller Report was released was palpable.
    I really do not give a rat’s ass about Tulsi Gabbard, especially as some of my leftier-than-thou acquaintances are praising her to the skies for her so-called “anti-imperialism”. As I have previously pointed out, her anti-war cred comes from a very strange place.
    And I would agree with cleek that policies should be adopted to combat state sponsored trollery. But, to steal a leaf from those who so blithely dismiss public policy to adopt a system of government run health care—show me your detailed plan.
    Shoe, meet other foot.
    Dismantling Facebook might be a start. Telling Russia that we “are not going to stand” for such interference does not strike me as an effective response.

  299. Wining is, of course, important too. And a not inappropriate response to current politics.
    But I did mean to say winning.

  300. Wining is, of course, important too. And a not inappropriate response to current politics.
    But I did mean to say winning.

  305. ignore Gabbard.
    To do otherwise is to give her the publicity she wants.
    It may be useful to differentiate between ignoring something like this when done by someone who is clearly not gaining any political traction, and calling it out when it is someone (like, say, Trump in 2016) who is getting enough attention to actually be a serious candidate. (“Serious” in the sense of having an effect. Not in the sense of being anything besides a performer.)
    How you treat one doesn’t necessarily mandate how you want to treat the other.

  306. ignore Gabbard.
    To do otherwise is to give her the publicity she wants.
    It may be useful to differentiate between ignoring something like this when done by someone who is clearly not gaining any political traction, and calling it out when it is someone (like, say, Trump in 2016) who is getting enough attention to actually be a serious candidate. (“Serious” in the sense of having an effect. Not in the sense of being anything besides a performer.)
    How you treat one doesn’t necessarily mandate how you want to treat the other.

  307. Of course – but in both cases, it’s imperative to realise when you’re being suckered into their narrative, and avoid it.
    In Gabbard’s case that means paying her an amount of attention she doesn’t merit.
    There is no wining volunteering to debate the questionable arguments of someone under 3% in the polls.

  308. Of course – but in both cases, it’s imperative to realise when you’re being suckered into their narrative, and avoid it.
    In Gabbard’s case that means paying her an amount of attention she doesn’t merit.
    There is no wining volunteering to debate the questionable arguments of someone under 3% in the polls.

  309. Nigel, if I’m not mistaken, you were a proponent of the theory that Clinton’s use of the word “deplorables” was a factor in her failure to win in 2016.
    My guess is that, if we lose in 2020, people will be blaming Clinton for the use of the word “groomed”.
    If this is true, we are well and truly f’d. And, if this is true, we would have been so whether or not Hillary Clinton were alive at all. If we’re that ridiculous, we aren’t really fit for democracy.

  310. Nigel, if I’m not mistaken, you were a proponent of the theory that Clinton’s use of the word “deplorables” was a factor in her failure to win in 2016.
    My guess is that, if we lose in 2020, people will be blaming Clinton for the use of the word “groomed”.
    If this is true, we are well and truly f’d. And, if this is true, we would have been so whether or not Hillary Clinton were alive at all. If we’re that ridiculous, we aren’t really fit for democracy.

  311. The Russian bot meme is liberal Democratic McCarthyism.
    First, it’s not a meme. It’s a reality.
    Second, pointing out that it exists is not “McCarthyism”. It’s pointing out that something real exists.
    Showing that the effect of the interference does not deviate from the underlying uncertainty does not show that the interference was ineffective, just that the signal wasn’t discernible from the noise at the macro level.
    The problem is not whether or not Trump coordinated with Russia. The problem is that whether or not there was coordination, a significant chunk of the public discourse is being driven by trolls using disinformation to erode our sense of common cause. That will continue unabated even if Trump is removed.
    wherein nous once again demonstrates his even-handed grasp of the situation.
    Yes, Russian trolls will try to fnck with our electoral process. They’ll do as much as they can get away with. They aren’t bound by US law, so they’ll just try on whatever they can get away with.
    What happened in 2016 is that the Trump campaign understood that Russian interference was going on, that it was advantageous to Trump, and they therefore welcomed it. They did not participate in the illegal act of hacking DNC servers, so Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy. They merely welcomed Russian interference, and likely coordinated their own efforts to take advantage of it.
    And then obstructed efforts to investigate all of that, which actually does cross the line of criminal and impeachable behavior.
    And Trump would likely have walked away from all of that, except he couldn’t help himself, and had to twist the arm of the Ukrainians to manufacture evidence that none of it ever happened, and that it was sekritly the Ukrainians collaborating with the (D)’s to pretend they were hacked.
    Because he’s a vain asshole. And that is probably what will sink him.
    Calling anything to do with any of that McCarthyism is BS. Trump’s a crook, and he’s also a vindictive asshole who can’t restrain himself from sticking it to people he sees as his enemies. Not a good combination, if you’re going to be a crook, you need to be discrete.
    So maybe he’ll end up going down. I have no idea which way it’s all going to play out.
    But he is up to his freaking ass in corruption with the Russians, starting with his luxury condo business model, continuing through the 2016 campaign, and right up until today.
    It is nothing like McCarthyism to point any of that out.
    This isn’t a freaking vendetta, it’s an attempt to preserve our form of government. The guy is a crook, flamboyantly so. His actions merit investigation. So, they’re being investigated.
    That is what is supposed to happen.

  312. The Russian bot meme is liberal Democratic McCarthyism.
    First, it’s not a meme. It’s a reality.
    Second, pointing out that it exists is not “McCarthyism”. It’s pointing out that something real exists.
    Showing that the effect of the interference does not deviate from the underlying uncertainty does not show that the interference was ineffective, just that the signal wasn’t discernible from the noise at the macro level.
    The problem is not whether or not Trump coordinated with Russia. The problem is that whether or not there was coordination, a significant chunk of the public discourse is being driven by trolls using disinformation to erode our sense of common cause. That will continue unabated even if Trump is removed.
    wherein nous once again demonstrates his even-handed grasp of the situation.
    Yes, Russian trolls will try to fnck with our electoral process. They’ll do as much as they can get away with. They aren’t bound by US law, so they’ll just try on whatever they can get away with.
    What happened in 2016 is that the Trump campaign understood that Russian interference was going on, that it was advantageous to Trump, and they therefore welcomed it. They did not participate in the illegal act of hacking DNC servers, so Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy. They merely welcomed Russian interference, and likely coordinated their own efforts to take advantage of it.
    And then obstructed efforts to investigate all of that, which actually does cross the line of criminal and impeachable behavior.
    And Trump would likely have walked away from all of that, except he couldn’t help himself, and had to twist the arm of the Ukrainians to manufacture evidence that none of it ever happened, and that it was sekritly the Ukrainians collaborating with the (D)’s to pretend they were hacked.
    Because he’s a vain asshole. And that is probably what will sink him.
    Calling anything to do with any of that McCarthyism is BS. Trump’s a crook, and he’s also a vindictive asshole who can’t restrain himself from sticking it to people he sees as his enemies. Not a good combination, if you’re going to be a crook, you need to be discrete.
    So maybe he’ll end up going down. I have no idea which way it’s all going to play out.
    But he is up to his freaking ass in corruption with the Russians, starting with his luxury condo business model, continuing through the 2016 campaign, and right up until today.
    It is nothing like McCarthyism to point any of that out.
    This isn’t a freaking vendetta, it’s an attempt to preserve our form of government. The guy is a crook, flamboyantly so. His actions merit investigation. So, they’re being investigated.
    That is what is supposed to happen.

  313. There is a case for the former proposition, given the closeness of the vote in some of the states where the comment might have had salience.
    In the end, unknowable, but it certainly didn’t help.
    Of course Hillary is not going to lose the 2020 vote for the Democrats on the basis of a spat with Gabbard, a year before the election That still doesn’t make it anything but stupid politics.
    And she is a better politician than that.

  314. There is a case for the former proposition, given the closeness of the vote in some of the states where the comment might have had salience.
    In the end, unknowable, but it certainly didn’t help.
    Of course Hillary is not going to lose the 2020 vote for the Democrats on the basis of a spat with Gabbard, a year before the election That still doesn’t make it anything but stupid politics.
    And she is a better politician than that.

  315. Nigel, if I’m not mistaken, you were a proponent of the theory that Clinton’s use of the word “deplorables” was a factor in her failure to win in 2016.
    US federal elections, for POTUS especially, are complex phenomena. How complex phenomena play out is pretty much never the result of one and only one factor.
    “Basket of deplorables”.
    Comey’s late-breaking crap about ‘her emails’.
    Russian agitprop in US social media channels.
    (D) party general neglect of some of what had been traditionally (D) demographics.
    The bizarre historical legacy that is the Electoral College.
    All factors. You can probably add 10 or 100 more to the list.
    No one thing caused Trump to win. Judging by absolute number of votes cast, Trump did not win.
    The “basket of deplorables” thing was an impolitic comment. Trump mocked the profound physical handicaps of a reporter. That really ought to have been, not just an “impolitic comment”, but grounds for somebody kicking his damned ass, publicly.
    The man should have been shunned, by any and every human being with a shred of decency. There is more going on here than can be explained by a single comment of Clinton’s.
    She is not the most adroit retail politician of her generation, and she’s not my favorite person ever, but she would have been ten times the POTUS than the toxic vain malicious SOB who holds the office now.
    None of what’s going on can be pinned on a single comment of Clinton’s.

  316. Nigel, if I’m not mistaken, you were a proponent of the theory that Clinton’s use of the word “deplorables” was a factor in her failure to win in 2016.
    US federal elections, for POTUS especially, are complex phenomena. How complex phenomena play out is pretty much never the result of one and only one factor.
    “Basket of deplorables”.
    Comey’s late-breaking crap about ‘her emails’.
    Russian agitprop in US social media channels.
    (D) party general neglect of some of what had been traditionally (D) demographics.
    The bizarre historical legacy that is the Electoral College.
    All factors. You can probably add 10 or 100 more to the list.
    No one thing caused Trump to win. Judging by absolute number of votes cast, Trump did not win.
    The “basket of deplorables” thing was an impolitic comment. Trump mocked the profound physical handicaps of a reporter. That really ought to have been, not just an “impolitic comment”, but grounds for somebody kicking his damned ass, publicly.
    The man should have been shunned, by any and every human being with a shred of decency. There is more going on here than can be explained by a single comment of Clinton’s.
    She is not the most adroit retail politician of her generation, and she’s not my favorite person ever, but she would have been ten times the POTUS than the toxic vain malicious SOB who holds the office now.
    None of what’s going on can be pinned on a single comment of Clinton’s.

  317. It’s a vendetta. sorting the reasons he probably should be impeached from the dozens of things that are completely ridiculous is not worth my time.
    But by any measure it’s been a slow moving coup for three years in a few weeks. I mean at least admit that no one here cares how they get him as long as they do, kind of defines a vendetta.

  318. It’s a vendetta. sorting the reasons he probably should be impeached from the dozens of things that are completely ridiculous is not worth my time.
    But by any measure it’s been a slow moving coup for three years in a few weeks. I mean at least admit that no one here cares how they get him as long as they do, kind of defines a vendetta.

  319. How many legitimate bases for throwing this guy out have to pile up before we can stop calling any of this a “coup”?
    The man insults the nation on a daily basis by his presence in office. If he is ever actually impeached and removed from office, it will only be due to his own actions.

  320. How many legitimate bases for throwing this guy out have to pile up before we can stop calling any of this a “coup”?
    The man insults the nation on a daily basis by his presence in office. If he is ever actually impeached and removed from office, it will only be due to his own actions.

  321. Regarding “deplorables”:
    A late night anecdote, or boring story, whichever:
    I worked with a colleague once, who was amusing and eccentric. She was (is) beautiful, proudly of Greek heritage. She was gossipy, and I was uncomfortable with that, but other than that I liked her a lot, and found her engaging and fun. We weren’t close, but it was always great to see her. Our larger group of friends were progressive – many gay – not very racially diverse because of the particular work demographic, but seemingly welcoming of the few non-white people around.
    She moved away for several years, but then moved closer in proximity, and I saw her in late November of 2016. The election trauma was a topic of conversation at all times. I don’t know who mentioned it first after we had a sweet greeting, but she soon said, “I voted for Trump. Yeah, I’m a deplorable.”
    I will say hello and wave, but what’s the point in being “friends” with someone who is proud of that? Now the children separated from their parents? Holy s^it.
    Sorry, I just don’t like those people.

  322. Regarding “deplorables”:
    A late night anecdote, or boring story, whichever:
    I worked with a colleague once, who was amusing and eccentric. She was (is) beautiful, proudly of Greek heritage. She was gossipy, and I was uncomfortable with that, but other than that I liked her a lot, and found her engaging and fun. We weren’t close, but it was always great to see her. Our larger group of friends were progressive – many gay – not very racially diverse because of the particular work demographic, but seemingly welcoming of the few non-white people around.
    She moved away for several years, but then moved closer in proximity, and I saw her in late November of 2016. The election trauma was a topic of conversation at all times. I don’t know who mentioned it first after we had a sweet greeting, but she soon said, “I voted for Trump. Yeah, I’m a deplorable.”
    I will say hello and wave, but what’s the point in being “friends” with someone who is proud of that? Now the children separated from their parents? Holy s^it.
    Sorry, I just don’t like those people.

  323. Showing that the effect of the interference does not deviate from the underlying uncertainty does not show that the interference was ineffective, just that the signal wasn’t discernible from the noise at the macro level.
    The problem is that the margin of victory in the critical states was smaller, much smaller, than the aforementioned noise level. Mostly, in most elections, it would have been too small to matter. This time, it wasn’t.

  324. Showing that the effect of the interference does not deviate from the underlying uncertainty does not show that the interference was ineffective, just that the signal wasn’t discernible from the noise at the macro level.
    The problem is that the margin of victory in the critical states was smaller, much smaller, than the aforementioned noise level. Mostly, in most elections, it would have been too small to matter. This time, it wasn’t.

  325. It’s a vendetta. sorting the reasons he probably should be impeached from the dozens of things that are completely ridiculous is not worth my time.
    But by any measure it’s been a slow moving coup for three years in a few weeks. I mean at least admit that no one here cares how they get him as long as they do, kind of defines a vendetta.
    Hogwash.
    Certainly thete are those who have been working from Day 1 of the Trump administration to thwart anything and everything he has done. Which is firmly in the established range of acceptable political behavior — see McConnell on his intentions at the beginning of the Obama administration. A coup, it is not. Nor a vendetta.
    Certainly there are those who don’t care how they get rid of Trump. But they are nowhere near enough of them to do it before the election.
    However, there are others who don’t disagree with much of his substantive actions. They just are decreasingly willing to tolerate his lawless behavior. Or just his massively stupid behavior. That, not politics, is what will bring him down before the election, if anything does.

  326. It’s a vendetta. sorting the reasons he probably should be impeached from the dozens of things that are completely ridiculous is not worth my time.
    But by any measure it’s been a slow moving coup for three years in a few weeks. I mean at least admit that no one here cares how they get him as long as they do, kind of defines a vendetta.
    Hogwash.
    Certainly thete are those who have been working from Day 1 of the Trump administration to thwart anything and everything he has done. Which is firmly in the established range of acceptable political behavior — see McConnell on his intentions at the beginning of the Obama administration. A coup, it is not. Nor a vendetta.
    Certainly there are those who don’t care how they get rid of Trump. But they are nowhere near enough of them to do it before the election.
    However, there are others who don’t disagree with much of his substantive actions. They just are decreasingly willing to tolerate his lawless behavior. Or just his massively stupid behavior. That, not politics, is what will bring him down before the election, if anything does.

  327. vendetta; n. a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone.
    Hmmm….Clintons, right wing noise machine, 1992-present (you know, like 27 fucking years). Yup. Classic vendetta!
    coup; n. 1. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government; 2. a notable or successful stroke or move.
    Hmmmm…nope. Not even. However, if Trump is run out of office before November, 2020, I guess the term would apply. And if it did…like so what? They guy is utterly corrupt. There is a Constitutional remedy for presidential corruption, and the GOP set the bar really low with Clinton, i.e., the President can rightfully be impeached and tossed from office for any fucking reason we care to dream up.
    Your rules. Live with them.

  328. vendetta; n. a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone.
    Hmmm….Clintons, right wing noise machine, 1992-present (you know, like 27 fucking years). Yup. Classic vendetta!
    coup; n. 1. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government; 2. a notable or successful stroke or move.
    Hmmmm…nope. Not even. However, if Trump is run out of office before November, 2020, I guess the term would apply. And if it did…like so what? They guy is utterly corrupt. There is a Constitutional remedy for presidential corruption, and the GOP set the bar really low with Clinton, i.e., the President can rightfully be impeached and tossed from office for any fucking reason we care to dream up.
    Your rules. Live with them.

  333. sapient, I’m sure we still do. It’s just that sometimes, ya gotta set aside lesser disagreements to address greater problems. (And if the US and USSR could cooperate to take out Hitler, we can. Our disagreements are way smaller than that!) Unfortunately, this is one of those times.
    Here’s hoping we get back to arguing sooner rather than later.

  334. sapient, I’m sure we still do. It’s just that sometimes, ya gotta set aside lesser disagreements to address greater problems. (And if the US and USSR could cooperate to take out Hitler, we can. Our disagreements are way smaller than that!) Unfortunately, this is one of those times.
    Here’s hoping we get back to arguing sooner rather than later.

  335. Hogwash. Coup definition is great, Thus the words slow moving to recognize the difference. Vendetta is, as I said, accurate.
    From day one there were those in power, and not in power, who have worked to remove him. Not, as in Obama’s case, just to thwart his agenda. Completely different in kind

  336. Hogwash. Coup definition is great, Thus the words slow moving to recognize the difference. Vendetta is, as I said, accurate.
    From day one there were those in power, and not in power, who have worked to remove him. Not, as in Obama’s case, just to thwart his agenda. Completely different in kind

  337. why would the blessed Founders put coup instructions in the Constitution?
    seems like a mistake on their part.

  338. why would the blessed Founders put coup instructions in the Constitution?
    seems like a mistake on their part.

  339. From day one there were those in power, and not in power, who have worked to remove him.
    the Russia allegations started before he took office. so, yes, investigating possible collusion between the President and a foreign adversary started from ‘day one’ (probably day -50 or so).
    but since it’s something that could possibly make “conservatives” sad, it must be illegitimate. tough.
    don’t elect a criminal next time. then maybe you have the problem of having your guy treated like a criminal.

  340. From day one there were those in power, and not in power, who have worked to remove him.
    the Russia allegations started before he took office. so, yes, investigating possible collusion between the President and a foreign adversary started from ‘day one’ (probably day -50 or so).
    but since it’s something that could possibly make “conservatives” sad, it must be illegitimate. tough.
    don’t elect a criminal next time. then maybe you have the problem of having your guy treated like a criminal.

  341. Get your head around this: Trump is a crook, and he put himself in a position where that is not acceptable.
    What is happening is what is supposed to happen.
    Read ’em and weep.

  342. Get your head around this: Trump is a crook, and he put himself in a position where that is not acceptable.
    What is happening is what is supposed to happen.
    Read ’em and weep.

  345. why would the blessed Founders put coup instructions in the Constitution?
    seems like a mistake on their part.
    Bunch of slavers…

  346. why would the blessed Founders put coup instructions in the Constitution?
    seems like a mistake on their part.
    Bunch of slavers…

  347. Perhaps someone can clarify something for me. How is it a coup if the members of the other party are looking to replace Trump with someone of the same party? Not replace him with a Democrat, which might (assuming other criteria were met as well) be called some kind of coup. But with someone of his own party.
    At least in my limited understanding, a coup would involve a party change. (Unless it was being driven by the Vice President’s partisans, of course.) So what am I missing?

  348. Perhaps someone can clarify something for me. How is it a coup if the members of the other party are looking to replace Trump with someone of the same party? Not replace him with a Democrat, which might (assuming other criteria were met as well) be called some kind of coup. But with someone of his own party.
    At least in my limited understanding, a coup would involve a party change. (Unless it was being driven by the Vice President’s partisans, of course.) So what am I missing?

  351. wj,one could (with a deranged enough mind) claim that Pence would be a puppet (or hostage) of the coupsters* given that he is also up to his neck in the corrupt schemes and thus vulnerable to blackmail (“either you do what we want or you’ll get impeached next and then sent to jail”). And of course the true intent of the coupsters is to remove Trump and Pence together to put Pelosi on the throne.
    *or would that be coupistas, coupisteros or something like that?

  352. wj,one could (with a deranged enough mind) claim that Pence would be a puppet (or hostage) of the coupsters* given that he is also up to his neck in the corrupt schemes and thus vulnerable to blackmail (“either you do what we want or you’ll get impeached next and then sent to jail”). And of course the true intent of the coupsters is to remove Trump and Pence together to put Pelosi on the throne.
    *or would that be coupistas, coupisteros or something like that?

  353. I think it’s true that Rump was surprised by the backlash to his plan to host the G7 at Doral. He’s so far gone ethically that he has little notion of where the lines are. His life’s experience with regular, consequence-free rule-breaking has left him with a highly skewed (or just muted?) sense of right and wrong. He’s such a twisted-up dude.

  354. I think it’s true that Rump was surprised by the backlash to his plan to host the G7 at Doral. He’s so far gone ethically that he has little notion of where the lines are. His life’s experience with regular, consequence-free rule-breaking has left him with a highly skewed (or just muted?) sense of right and wrong. He’s such a twisted-up dude.

  357. Perhaps someone can clarify something for me. How is it a coup…
    There is no clarity to be found in the arrant trollery of Clickbait and Fox News talking points.

  358. Perhaps someone can clarify something for me. How is it a coup…
    There is no clarity to be found in the arrant trollery of Clickbait and Fox News talking points.

  359. he was probably surprised that the GOP was upset. that’s not how things are supposed to work for him.
    Certainly. Democrats being upset is meaningless, because they just don’t like him and will complain no matter what he does (in his mind). That his plan was bad enough that his usual enablers took offense was something he couldn’t foresee, even though what he wanted to do was so obviously wrong (to a normal person).

  360. he was probably surprised that the GOP was upset. that’s not how things are supposed to work for him.
    Certainly. Democrats being upset is meaningless, because they just don’t like him and will complain no matter what he does (in his mind). That his plan was bad enough that his usual enablers took offense was something he couldn’t foresee, even though what he wanted to do was so obviously wrong (to a normal person).

  361. Seeing things from someone else’s view (aka empathy) is just not one of his core competencies. See, for example, his obvious surprise when he got laughed at when he said somethong particularly detatched from reality at the UN a while back.

  362. Seeing things from someone else’s view (aka empathy) is just not one of his core competencies. See, for example, his obvious surprise when he got laughed at when he said somethong particularly detatched from reality at the UN a while back.

  363. I agree, wj. And regarding his UN surprise, it’s not merely a lack of empathy; he and his base are so divorced from reality that they truly believe the incredible bullshit they spout about how he and the US are now so respected because of his Presidency, whereas to everybody else in the world he and his enablers are a laughingstock. A bit like during the Iraq war, when that Saddam spokesman said the enemy’s troops were nowhere near, were in fact being harried away, when in the newscast you could see the enemy’s tanks and trucks coming in behind him. He was known as Comical Ali, to differentiate him from the horrific Chemical Ali, and Trump’s lies and idiocies are exposing him to exactly the same kind of ridicule. If the White House had not confirmed the authenticity of his letter to Erdogan, the whole world would have continued to believe it to be a spoof.

  364. I agree, wj. And regarding his UN surprise, it’s not merely a lack of empathy; he and his base are so divorced from reality that they truly believe the incredible bullshit they spout about how he and the US are now so respected because of his Presidency, whereas to everybody else in the world he and his enablers are a laughingstock. A bit like during the Iraq war, when that Saddam spokesman said the enemy’s troops were nowhere near, were in fact being harried away, when in the newscast you could see the enemy’s tanks and trucks coming in behind him. He was known as Comical Ali, to differentiate him from the horrific Chemical Ali, and Trump’s lies and idiocies are exposing him to exactly the same kind of ridicule. If the White House had not confirmed the authenticity of his letter to Erdogan, the whole world would have continued to believe it to be a spoof.

  367. If the White House had not confirmed the authenticity of his letter to Erdogan, the whole world would have continued to believe it to be a spoof.
    I expect that the biggest defense he has against being laughed at is that most people, even now, have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that he is putting out stuff which otherwise would be just assumed to be a spoof from the Onion or something. Self-parody . . . except that it is, apparently, unconscious.

  368. If the White House had not confirmed the authenticity of his letter to Erdogan, the whole world would have continued to believe it to be a spoof.
    I expect that the biggest defense he has against being laughed at is that most people, even now, have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that he is putting out stuff which otherwise would be just assumed to be a spoof from the Onion or something. Self-parody . . . except that it is, apparently, unconscious.

  369. Now this almost undoubtedly did make a difference to the last election.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/jeffrey-toobin-clinton-emails-053484
    The Times, in particular, has faced scrutiny for its front-page treatment of Clinton email stories in the final months of the election, including after the Comey letter, and so it’s handling of the State Department having concluded its years-long investigation didn’t go unnoticed.
    “For months, @nytimes put stories of Hillary Clinton’s email on its front pages,” Ploughshares Fund president Joe Cirincione tweeted Saturday. “The final investigative report clearing all of wrongdoing? That is on page 16 today.”
    The Times’ Amy Chozick, who covered Clinton in 2016, wrote last year how she “became an unwitting agent of Russian intelligence” in covering the hacked DNC and Podesta emails, though editors have largely defended covering those emails because they were released publicly and deemed newsworthy….

  370. Now this almost undoubtedly did make a difference to the last election.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/jeffrey-toobin-clinton-emails-053484
    The Times, in particular, has faced scrutiny for its front-page treatment of Clinton email stories in the final months of the election, including after the Comey letter, and so it’s handling of the State Department having concluded its years-long investigation didn’t go unnoticed.
    “For months, @nytimes put stories of Hillary Clinton’s email on its front pages,” Ploughshares Fund president Joe Cirincione tweeted Saturday. “The final investigative report clearing all of wrongdoing? That is on page 16 today.”
    The Times’ Amy Chozick, who covered Clinton in 2016, wrote last year how she “became an unwitting agent of Russian intelligence” in covering the hacked DNC and Podesta emails, though editors have largely defended covering those emails because they were released publicly and deemed newsworthy….

  373. Shades of Judith Miller.
    If the Times is going to be called a left wing “tool” by the fascist GOP, then just when the heck are they going to start being one? They certainly are not very good at it, really fallen down on the job if you ask me.

  374. Shades of Judith Miller.
    If the Times is going to be called a left wing “tool” by the fascist GOP, then just when the heck are they going to start being one? They certainly are not very good at it, really fallen down on the job if you ask me.

  375. From a BJ commenter (no link, but I’ve asked for one):

    “Analyses by Columbia Journalism Review, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School show that the Clinton email controversy received more coverage in mainstream media outlets than any other topic during the 2016 presidential election.The New York Times coverage of the email controversy was notoriously extensive; according to a Columbia Journalism Review analysis, “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election (and that does not include the three additional articles on October 18, and November 6 and 7, or the two articles on the emails taken from John Podesta).”

  376. From a BJ commenter (no link, but I’ve asked for one):

    “Analyses by Columbia Journalism Review, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School show that the Clinton email controversy received more coverage in mainstream media outlets than any other topic during the 2016 presidential election.The New York Times coverage of the email controversy was notoriously extensive; according to a Columbia Journalism Review analysis, “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election (and that does not include the three additional articles on October 18, and November 6 and 7, or the two articles on the emails taken from John Podesta).”

  377. Far more than the New York Times coverage, it would be interesting to know what newspapers in the upper MidWest were saying. That, after all, is where the rubber met the road. What did the Chicago, Detroit, etc. papers feature?

  378. Far more than the New York Times coverage, it would be interesting to know what newspapers in the upper MidWest were saying. That, after all, is where the rubber met the road. What did the Chicago, Detroit, etc. papers feature?

  379. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Tony Blair were the innocent victims of lies. They were part of the push to war. Ordinary people could be suckered by what most Republicans, some Democrats, and much of the press were saying. But the people in power and the press were the ones pushing extremely weak or nonexistent evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the US. Clinton was one of them. Biden and Kerry did this too. This was the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in decades and nobody involved should have been prancing around as a foreign policy expert. Well, unless they have a deeply cynical view of power and careerism, which is probably true of many of them.
    https://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/
    This issue mattered in 2008. As late as 2007 Clinton was refusing to say her vote was a mistake. But in 2016, she was portrayed as a foreign policy expert. This is incompatible with being part of the worst foreign policy catastrophe of a generation, but it didn’t stop people, because we don’t have honest discussions about much of anything in America. We have opportunistic, partisan, performances instead. And Clinton and Kerry and Biden have a resume, with all the little boxes checked off. They all have “ experience”. That’s all that matters.
    On Russian bots, well, let me explain. I don’t argue much anymore because I don’t see the point. I am ranting now because I have been disgusted by recent events but it won’t last. What I actually think about most mainstream politicians and pundits would look like a Thullen post. Constant bullshit and pathological lying by a lot of people in both parties who ought to be in prison. For example, all the criticism of Trump and his betrayal of the Kurds is true. He set them up and then let the Turks and the FSA come in. But the BS is this— if tihis were genuine consistent humanitarian outrage, then it would have been in full evidence when Obama decided to help the Saudis bomb Yemen. That would have been front page news from day one. And you wouldn’t have to be a freaking obsessive to know that we were arming Syrian rebels who fought alongside Al Qaeda. All the people currently yelling about the betrayal of the Kurds by Trump would have been yelling then, but there was no yelling because we have a crappy dishonest press and right now people are busy whitewashing our previous Syrian policy. Kristof’s recent column— he whitewashes Obama. And he knows better.
    Okay, Russian bots. I find it impossible to give a crap. It looks like liberals making excuses. The stolen emails might have mattered because they revealed genuinely interesting material. The social media campaign— well, sure, maybe some Clinton voter saw a picture of Jesus armwrestling Satan and decided to vote for Trump. Maybe we are such a weak pathetic democracy so incapable of having serious conversations about issues unless couched in partisan terms that literally any batch of idiots with a comparatively tiny amount budget could overwhelm our own native propaganda producers and steal our democracy out from under us.
    I would suggest that people worry about actual election machine tampering coming from anyone and the solution there is paper ballots hand counted in public. To fight dishonest propaganda from numerous sources, foreign ( multiple foreign sources) and domestic, maybe have an honest press and politicians who don’t come across as people trying to please their rich donor base while tricking the rubes into voting for them. But lying is part of politics and Russian liars have no magical powers.

  380. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Tony Blair were the innocent victims of lies. They were part of the push to war. Ordinary people could be suckered by what most Republicans, some Democrats, and much of the press were saying. But the people in power and the press were the ones pushing extremely weak or nonexistent evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the US. Clinton was one of them. Biden and Kerry did this too. This was the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in decades and nobody involved should have been prancing around as a foreign policy expert. Well, unless they have a deeply cynical view of power and careerism, which is probably true of many of them.
    https://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/
    This issue mattered in 2008. As late as 2007 Clinton was refusing to say her vote was a mistake. But in 2016, she was portrayed as a foreign policy expert. This is incompatible with being part of the worst foreign policy catastrophe of a generation, but it didn’t stop people, because we don’t have honest discussions about much of anything in America. We have opportunistic, partisan, performances instead. And Clinton and Kerry and Biden have a resume, with all the little boxes checked off. They all have “ experience”. That’s all that matters.
    On Russian bots, well, let me explain. I don’t argue much anymore because I don’t see the point. I am ranting now because I have been disgusted by recent events but it won’t last. What I actually think about most mainstream politicians and pundits would look like a Thullen post. Constant bullshit and pathological lying by a lot of people in both parties who ought to be in prison. For example, all the criticism of Trump and his betrayal of the Kurds is true. He set them up and then let the Turks and the FSA come in. But the BS is this— if tihis were genuine consistent humanitarian outrage, then it would have been in full evidence when Obama decided to help the Saudis bomb Yemen. That would have been front page news from day one. And you wouldn’t have to be a freaking obsessive to know that we were arming Syrian rebels who fought alongside Al Qaeda. All the people currently yelling about the betrayal of the Kurds by Trump would have been yelling then, but there was no yelling because we have a crappy dishonest press and right now people are busy whitewashing our previous Syrian policy. Kristof’s recent column— he whitewashes Obama. And he knows better.
    Okay, Russian bots. I find it impossible to give a crap. It looks like liberals making excuses. The stolen emails might have mattered because they revealed genuinely interesting material. The social media campaign— well, sure, maybe some Clinton voter saw a picture of Jesus armwrestling Satan and decided to vote for Trump. Maybe we are such a weak pathetic democracy so incapable of having serious conversations about issues unless couched in partisan terms that literally any batch of idiots with a comparatively tiny amount budget could overwhelm our own native propaganda producers and steal our democracy out from under us.
    I would suggest that people worry about actual election machine tampering coming from anyone and the solution there is paper ballots hand counted in public. To fight dishonest propaganda from numerous sources, foreign ( multiple foreign sources) and domestic, maybe have an honest press and politicians who don’t come across as people trying to please their rich donor base while tricking the rubes into voting for them. But lying is part of politics and Russian liars have no magical powers.

  383. Thanks, nous. The BJ commenter presented what I copied as a quote, but it’s not an exact quote from that CJR article, and the way she presented it, it’s unclear where the rest came from, whether it was hers or someone else’s.
    No biggie, the gist is in the CJR article, so thanks for the link. Earlier today it wouldn’t load into my browser, so I didn’t want to include it. Why it loaded now but not earlier I have no idea. More gremlins, I suppose.

  384. Thanks, nous. The BJ commenter presented what I copied as a quote, but it’s not an exact quote from that CJR article, and the way she presented it, it’s unclear where the rest came from, whether it was hers or someone else’s.
    No biggie, the gist is in the CJR article, so thanks for the link. Earlier today it wouldn’t load into my browser, so I didn’t want to include it. Why it loaded now but not earlier I have no idea. More gremlins, I suppose.

  389. doo de doo, nothing to give a shit about here.

    Facebook on Monday said it removed a network of Russian-backed accounts that posed as locals weighing in on political issues in swing states, praising President Trump and attacking former vice president Joe Biden — illustrating that the familiar threat of Russian interference looms over the next U.S. presidential race.
    Facebook said the network bears the hallmark of the same Kremlin-backed group that interfered in the 2016 election by sowing social discord, seeking to boost Trump and attacking Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The new disinformation campaign appears to follow the same playbook.
    This time, a coordinated group of Russian accounts that appears to show some links to the Internet Research Agency largely took to Facebook’s photo-sharing app, Instagram, to post content this year about U.S. politics and memes targeting Democratic presidential contenders.
    The operation demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the schisms within the Democratic Party as it labors to choose a nominee to face Trump in 2020. One Russian account, which portrayed itself as a black voter in Michigan, used the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to hammer Biden for gaffes about racial issues. Some of the accounts boosted one of his rivals on the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    a scheme in which a foreign government seeks to misinform and misdirect American voters in order to create distrust and dischord among them, and to ultimately ensure the re-election of the incompetent and stupidly-destructive Trump (exactly as it did in 2016), is just sooooo boring. better ignore that! better find a way to blame the Dems. that helps!

  390. doo de doo, nothing to give a shit about here.

    Facebook on Monday said it removed a network of Russian-backed accounts that posed as locals weighing in on political issues in swing states, praising President Trump and attacking former vice president Joe Biden — illustrating that the familiar threat of Russian interference looms over the next U.S. presidential race.
    Facebook said the network bears the hallmark of the same Kremlin-backed group that interfered in the 2016 election by sowing social discord, seeking to boost Trump and attacking Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The new disinformation campaign appears to follow the same playbook.
    This time, a coordinated group of Russian accounts that appears to show some links to the Internet Research Agency largely took to Facebook’s photo-sharing app, Instagram, to post content this year about U.S. politics and memes targeting Democratic presidential contenders.
    The operation demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the schisms within the Democratic Party as it labors to choose a nominee to face Trump in 2020. One Russian account, which portrayed itself as a black voter in Michigan, used the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to hammer Biden for gaffes about racial issues. Some of the accounts boosted one of his rivals on the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    a scheme in which a foreign government seeks to misinform and misdirect American voters in order to create distrust and dischord among them, and to ultimately ensure the re-election of the incompetent and stupidly-destructive Trump (exactly as it did in 2016), is just sooooo boring. better ignore that! better find a way to blame the Dems. that helps!

  391. If you’re sick of the new McCarthyism and warmongering by Hillary and her cohorts, then join our campaign. We need your support. Democrat, Republican, Independent — it doesn’t matter. We need to unite to usher in a govt which is of, by, and for the people!

    Tulsi Gabbard campaign tweet.
    how coincidental.

  392. If you’re sick of the new McCarthyism and warmongering by Hillary and her cohorts, then join our campaign. We need your support. Democrat, Republican, Independent — it doesn’t matter. We need to unite to usher in a govt which is of, by, and for the people!

    Tulsi Gabbard campaign tweet.
    how coincidental.

  393. the pile-on in comments in Gabbard’s tweet is… remarkable. she’s likely to lose her seat in the House out of this.

  394. the pile-on in comments in Gabbard’s tweet is… remarkable. she’s likely to lose her seat in the House out of this.

  395. how coincidental.
    I’m not sure exactly what you mean here, cleek. Does this mean you think Gabbard is taking direction from Moscow?

  396. how coincidental.
    I’m not sure exactly what you mean here, cleek. Does this mean you think Gabbard is taking direction from Moscow?

  397. In other news, a local liquor store informs me that tariffs have been imposed on a variety of products from the EU.
    French, Italian, and Spanish wine and cheeses, and Irish whiskey. 25%!!
    Coastal elitists, to the ramparts! This aggression will not stand, man!!

  398. In other news, a local liquor store informs me that tariffs have been imposed on a variety of products from the EU.
    French, Italian, and Spanish wine and cheeses, and Irish whiskey. 25%!!
    Coastal elitists, to the ramparts! This aggression will not stand, man!!

  399. Does this mean you think Gabbard is taking direction from Moscow?
    i think Gabbard is an idiot who has set herself on a course which parallels the kind of course we already know Moscow likes, intentionally or not.

  400. Does this mean you think Gabbard is taking direction from Moscow?
    i think Gabbard is an idiot who has set herself on a course which parallels the kind of course we already know Moscow likes, intentionally or not.

  401. Thanks.
    Irish whiskey
    I can deal with wine and cheese from places other than France, Italy, and Spain. But Irish whiskey isn’t really something you can get, except from Ireland. Not cool.

  402. Thanks.
    Irish whiskey
    I can deal with wine and cheese from places other than France, Italy, and Spain. But Irish whiskey isn’t really something you can get, except from Ireland. Not cool.

  403. You guys can have the whiskey. For me, Manchego and Iberico were already budget-stretching treats.
    I’ll have to think of it as just another incentive to actually get serious about eating less cheese.
    Fun factoid of the day: There’s a store in Belfast, Maine, called Eat More Cheese. I imagine they’ll be hurt by these tariffs. Luckily for my health and my budget, I don’t live too close to Belfast anyhow.

  404. You guys can have the whiskey. For me, Manchego and Iberico were already budget-stretching treats.
    I’ll have to think of it as just another incentive to actually get serious about eating less cheese.
    Fun factoid of the day: There’s a store in Belfast, Maine, called Eat More Cheese. I imagine they’ll be hurt by these tariffs. Luckily for my health and my budget, I don’t live too close to Belfast anyhow.

  405. Something I meant to bring up was the use of “Russian asset.” I don’t take that narrowly to apply only to someone who is actively and knowingly working on behalf of Russia. But I think that’s what a lot of people think it means, as opposed to someone the Russians can use to their advantage (at least in a sufficiently sustained and focused way – not in a one-off or diffuse effort).

  406. Something I meant to bring up was the use of “Russian asset.” I don’t take that narrowly to apply only to someone who is actively and knowingly working on behalf of Russia. But I think that’s what a lot of people think it means, as opposed to someone the Russians can use to their advantage (at least in a sufficiently sustained and focused way – not in a one-off or diffuse effort).

  407. no, i don’t think she’s actively and knowingly working on behalf of Russia. but the kind of idiot she’s being is useful to them.

  408. no, i don’t think she’s actively and knowingly working on behalf of Russia. but the kind of idiot she’s being is useful to them.

  409. Sure. My point was that people who hear or see “Russian asset” think someone is being described as something like a spy and react accordingly, whether it’s because they believe the accusation or they think the accusation is over the top. (People who write headlines probably know this, too, and they like it.)

  410. Sure. My point was that people who hear or see “Russian asset” think someone is being described as something like a spy and react accordingly, whether it’s because they believe the accusation or they think the accusation is over the top. (People who write headlines probably know this, too, and they like it.)

  411. But I think that’s what a lot of people think it means, as opposed to someone the Russians can use to their advantage (at least in a sufficiently sustained and focused way – not in a one-off or diffuse effort).
    If a person who is savvy enough to win a Congressional seat intentionally takes positions and uses rhetoric that’s helpful to the Russian troll narrative, it’s not absurd to assume they’re doing it knowing that they’re helping Russia. Obviously, no one can read their mind. For that matter, maybe actual Russian agents don’t know what they’re doing either since no one can read their mind.
    I’m fine with using the word “asset.” Clearly, she’s an asset in the ordinary sense and meaning of that word.

  412. But I think that’s what a lot of people think it means, as opposed to someone the Russians can use to their advantage (at least in a sufficiently sustained and focused way – not in a one-off or diffuse effort).
    If a person who is savvy enough to win a Congressional seat intentionally takes positions and uses rhetoric that’s helpful to the Russian troll narrative, it’s not absurd to assume they’re doing it knowing that they’re helping Russia. Obviously, no one can read their mind. For that matter, maybe actual Russian agents don’t know what they’re doing either since no one can read their mind.
    I’m fine with using the word “asset.” Clearly, she’s an asset in the ordinary sense and meaning of that word.

  413. “i think Gabbard is an idiot who has set herself on a course which parallels the kind of course we already know Moscow likes, intentionally or not.”
    Is it relevant, let’s say, in every case, thata course that parallels one Moscow likes is bad? Should that be fundamental to our foreign policy? If Moscow likes it we think it’s bad, period.
    Perhaps her ideas are good for us and, incidentally, Moscow likes them?

  414. “i think Gabbard is an idiot who has set herself on a course which parallels the kind of course we already know Moscow likes, intentionally or not.”
    Is it relevant, let’s say, in every case, thata course that parallels one Moscow likes is bad? Should that be fundamental to our foreign policy? If Moscow likes it we think it’s bad, period.
    Perhaps her ideas are good for us and, incidentally, Moscow likes them?

  415. If a person who is savvy enough to win a Congressional seat…
    I don’t think it’s that high of a bar, given some of the things MCs say and do.
    I’m also not saying there’s something wrong with the use of asset. I’m saying that many people take it necessarily to mean something more than it necessarily does, at least in the context under discussion. The ordinary sense and meaning of a word doesn’t always matter in every context, the same way it doesn’t in a term of art.
    A useful idiot isn’t the same thing as a double agent, but both can be considered assets. Despite this, many people only read it to mean something much closer to double agent than useful idiot. And that gets exploited for the purposes of sensationalism.
    So, regardless of the basis in evidence for what Clinton said, it’s being taken as something far more sensational than it seems, AFAICT, it was meant.

  416. If a person who is savvy enough to win a Congressional seat…
    I don’t think it’s that high of a bar, given some of the things MCs say and do.
    I’m also not saying there’s something wrong with the use of asset. I’m saying that many people take it necessarily to mean something more than it necessarily does, at least in the context under discussion. The ordinary sense and meaning of a word doesn’t always matter in every context, the same way it doesn’t in a term of art.
    A useful idiot isn’t the same thing as a double agent, but both can be considered assets. Despite this, many people only read it to mean something much closer to double agent than useful idiot. And that gets exploited for the purposes of sensationalism.
    So, regardless of the basis in evidence for what Clinton said, it’s being taken as something far more sensational than it seems, AFAICT, it was meant.

  417. My take tends to be that a “Russian asset” is someone who is doing Russia’s bidding. Whether from shared ideology, affection (family-based or othetwise), bribery, blackmail, etc.
    As opposed to “an asset to Russia”, who is someone who does things that benefit Russia. But without guidance, coordination, or perhaps even without contact. Russia may well try to (covertly) try to help elect such people. But part of their value is precisely that there are no links that can be uncovered.
    It is, admittedly, a nuance which is mostly lost/ignored in our public discourse. But I think it’s an important one.
    My sense is that Gabbard may fall, to some extent, into the latter category. Which Trump belongs to is, for the moment, undetermined. w

  418. My take tends to be that a “Russian asset” is someone who is doing Russia’s bidding. Whether from shared ideology, affection (family-based or othetwise), bribery, blackmail, etc.
    As opposed to “an asset to Russia”, who is someone who does things that benefit Russia. But without guidance, coordination, or perhaps even without contact. Russia may well try to (covertly) try to help elect such people. But part of their value is precisely that there are no links that can be uncovered.
    It is, admittedly, a nuance which is mostly lost/ignored in our public discourse. But I think it’s an important one.
    My sense is that Gabbard may fall, to some extent, into the latter category. Which Trump belongs to is, for the moment, undetermined. w

  421. In other words, “OMG!!! That Clinton’s a crazy conspiracy theorist!!!”
    Or maybe there is a conspiracy. I am willing to be called a “conspiracy theorist” based on facts that have been proven, and things that have occurred and been stated in public.

  422. In other words, “OMG!!! That Clinton’s a crazy conspiracy theorist!!!”
    Or maybe there is a conspiracy. I am willing to be called a “conspiracy theorist” based on facts that have been proven, and things that have occurred and been stated in public.

  423. If a person…intentionally takes positions and uses rhetoric that’s helpful to (the other side), it’s not absurd to assume they’re doing it knowing that they’re helping (the other side).
    I would not characterize this as “McCarthyism” as that term seems wholly inappropriate. But it does verge on a smear.
    It is, IMHO, treading on dangerous ground. Using this definition, I have – just in my brief lifespan -helped both Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein, and kinda’ sorta’ assisted Jill Stein. In a similar vein, Democrats who whine about balanced federal budgets are thus actually, and consciously “helping” the Republican Party. Can I call them “assets”?
    The term “help” is carrying a bit too much weight in the aggressively accusatory formulation as written. I suggest the services of a good wordsmith.
    Other than that…politics ain’t bean bag. It is deadly serious at times. Carry on.

  424. If a person…intentionally takes positions and uses rhetoric that’s helpful to (the other side), it’s not absurd to assume they’re doing it knowing that they’re helping (the other side).
    I would not characterize this as “McCarthyism” as that term seems wholly inappropriate. But it does verge on a smear.
    It is, IMHO, treading on dangerous ground. Using this definition, I have – just in my brief lifespan -helped both Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein, and kinda’ sorta’ assisted Jill Stein. In a similar vein, Democrats who whine about balanced federal budgets are thus actually, and consciously “helping” the Republican Party. Can I call them “assets”?
    The term “help” is carrying a bit too much weight in the aggressively accusatory formulation as written. I suggest the services of a good wordsmith.
    Other than that…politics ain’t bean bag. It is deadly serious at times. Carry on.

  427. Perhaps her ideas are good for us and, incidentally, Moscow likes them?
    i think most of her domestic policy ideas are pretty good, actually. her foreign policy is much more mixed, for me. but it’s her rhetoric that makes people scratch their heads.

  428. Perhaps her ideas are good for us and, incidentally, Moscow likes them?
    i think most of her domestic policy ideas are pretty good, actually. her foreign policy is much more mixed, for me. but it’s her rhetoric that makes people scratch their heads.

  429. i think most of her domestic policy ideas are pretty good, actually. her foreign policy is much more mixed, for me. but it’s her rhetoric that makes people scratch their heads.
    Because of her rhetoric, I don’t believe or trust her on policy.

  430. i think most of her domestic policy ideas are pretty good, actually. her foreign policy is much more mixed, for me. but it’s her rhetoric that makes people scratch their heads.
    Because of her rhetoric, I don’t believe or trust her on policy.

  433. Because of her rhetoric, I don’t believe or trust her on policy.
    true.
    she’s hurt herself quite a bit, i suspect.
    it’s one way to stand out, though. get some of that sweet sweet Tucker Carlson love.

  434. Because of her rhetoric, I don’t believe or trust her on policy.
    true.
    she’s hurt herself quite a bit, i suspect.
    it’s one way to stand out, though. get some of that sweet sweet Tucker Carlson love.

  435. Or maybe there is a conspiracy. I am willing to be called a “conspiracy theorist” based on facts that have been proven, and things that have occurred and been stated in public.
    Okay. But some people seem to think Clinton is accusing Gabbard of being something like a Russian spy and are reacting with “OMG!!! That Clinton’s a crazy conspiracy theorist!!!” on that basis. (And if she were accusing Gabbard specifically of that, it would be without evidence.)
    But I’m starting to feel like I’m going down a rabbit hole, so I’m going to leave it at that.

  436. Or maybe there is a conspiracy. I am willing to be called a “conspiracy theorist” based on facts that have been proven, and things that have occurred and been stated in public.
    Okay. But some people seem to think Clinton is accusing Gabbard of being something like a Russian spy and are reacting with “OMG!!! That Clinton’s a crazy conspiracy theorist!!!” on that basis. (And if she were accusing Gabbard specifically of that, it would be without evidence.)
    But I’m starting to feel like I’m going down a rabbit hole, so I’m going to leave it at that.

  437. but it’s her rhetoric that makes people scratch their heads.
    This. She is fore square against ‘interventions’ but all in on drone warfare against ‘terrorists’. She is an Islamophobe, hence the goofy support for the secularist Assad regime. As a Hindu nationalist, she is also all in for Modi. I can only wonder what her position on Kashmir is.

  438. but it’s her rhetoric that makes people scratch their heads.
    This. She is fore square against ‘interventions’ but all in on drone warfare against ‘terrorists’. She is an Islamophobe, hence the goofy support for the secularist Assad regime. As a Hindu nationalist, she is also all in for Modi. I can only wonder what her position on Kashmir is.

  441. As a Hindu nationalist, she is also all in for Modi. I can only wonder what her position on Kashmir is.
    It’s in this kind of situation where you see who is a real pacifist (or whatever morality-based political position you prefer), and who is merely using it as cover for advocating policies that they support for completely other reasons.

  442. As a Hindu nationalist, she is also all in for Modi. I can only wonder what her position on Kashmir is.
    It’s in this kind of situation where you see who is a real pacifist (or whatever morality-based political position you prefer), and who is merely using it as cover for advocating policies that they support for completely other reasons.

  443. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if Gabbard were to quit pretending that she was a Democrat, leave the party and run against Trump for the Republican ticket?
    A guy can dream…

  444. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if Gabbard were to quit pretending that she was a Democrat, leave the party and run against Trump for the Republican ticket?
    A guy can dream…

  449. Very late to this party, but just wanted to say that I get what hsh is saying, and I agree with him. If it is possible to be more careful about wording so that one gives impression A (useful idiot, not requiring proof) rather than impression B (treacherous spy in the pay of a foreign power, requiring proof) it’s a good idea. Nothing will stop sensationalist malevolent actors from gleefully seizing and publicising and then igniting the wrong end of the stick, but it’s a good idea to try to give them as little fuel for the fire as possible.

  450. Very late to this party, but just wanted to say that I get what hsh is saying, and I agree with him. If it is possible to be more careful about wording so that one gives impression A (useful idiot, not requiring proof) rather than impression B (treacherous spy in the pay of a foreign power, requiring proof) it’s a good idea. Nothing will stop sensationalist malevolent actors from gleefully seizing and publicising and then igniting the wrong end of the stick, but it’s a good idea to try to give them as little fuel for the fire as possible.

  455. “Thought Leaders” always seems a bit Orewellian to me.
    Having encountered it exclusively in the business world, I hear it as one of those business-ese phrases that’s all the more hollow because it’s supposed to be so portentous, if not downright profound. Same people who use “utilize” and “assist” all the time.

  456. “Thought Leaders” always seems a bit Orewellian to me.
    Having encountered it exclusively in the business world, I hear it as one of those business-ese phrases that’s all the more hollow because it’s supposed to be so portentous, if not downright profound. Same people who use “utilize” and “assist” all the time.

  461. There is no such thing as a thought follower. It’s kind of like Lake Wobegon, where all the kids are above average.
    You are not supposed to ask inconvenient questions, though….

  462. There is no such thing as a thought follower. It’s kind of like Lake Wobegon, where all the kids are above average.
    You are not supposed to ask inconvenient questions, though….

  463. There is no such thing as a thought follower.
    Nope, just followers. Having followers who think would, after all, be soooo inconvenient.

  464. There is no such thing as a thought follower.
    Nope, just followers. Having followers who think would, after all, be soooo inconvenient.

  465. Yes cleek, the Facebook story is exactly the sort of crap I don’t care about. We have had homegrown American liars sowing discord and spreading lies in this country for as long as we have had a country. I love the melodramatic spy novel discourse that people use to talk about this trivia. It’ s like living in a Tom Clancy novel written by liberals.
    We have always had discord in this country and rightwing propaganda and a fair amount of hypocrisy on the left and, btw, lefties have been ( correctly) criticizing mainstream liberals for hawkishness and hypocrisy for as long as I have been aware of politics. Personally I despised Bill Clinton almost as soon as I was aware of him. Dislike of Hillary came later, as it became clear what her foreign policy views were. Tulsi has her problems which make many lefties unenthusiastic about her, but everything she says about Clinton is well within what anti interventionist leftists have been saying about that part of the Democratic Party for decades. And btw, calling leftists useful idiots is also something of a tradition amongst liberals. The dislike is mutual and not created by Putin. I assume I don’t have to talk about the decades of propaganda put out by very well funded people on the right. And then there are all those think tanks with funding from all sorts of people, including foreigners. But sure, our little democratic utopia has been upended by Russian Facebook ads. We used to be so honest and have such respectful fact- filled debates and discussions about the important issues of the day. It was like living inside a West Wing episode. The liberals won almost all the debates, because reality has a well known liberal bias and everybody knew it.
    Incidentally, stepping back a bit, all political factions live in their own little world. You can visit sites to the left and to the right of this one where nearly everybody disagrees with things taken for granted here. Did Putin do that too? The man is like some sort of Lovecraftian nightmare.
    Anyway, end of my ranting. . I will vote for the Democrat in 2020, even if it is Biden or Clinton come to save the Democratic Party from people like me whose brains are under the ancient chthonic spell of nameless Russian gods.

  466. Yes cleek, the Facebook story is exactly the sort of crap I don’t care about. We have had homegrown American liars sowing discord and spreading lies in this country for as long as we have had a country. I love the melodramatic spy novel discourse that people use to talk about this trivia. It’ s like living in a Tom Clancy novel written by liberals.
    We have always had discord in this country and rightwing propaganda and a fair amount of hypocrisy on the left and, btw, lefties have been ( correctly) criticizing mainstream liberals for hawkishness and hypocrisy for as long as I have been aware of politics. Personally I despised Bill Clinton almost as soon as I was aware of him. Dislike of Hillary came later, as it became clear what her foreign policy views were. Tulsi has her problems which make many lefties unenthusiastic about her, but everything she says about Clinton is well within what anti interventionist leftists have been saying about that part of the Democratic Party for decades. And btw, calling leftists useful idiots is also something of a tradition amongst liberals. The dislike is mutual and not created by Putin. I assume I don’t have to talk about the decades of propaganda put out by very well funded people on the right. And then there are all those think tanks with funding from all sorts of people, including foreigners. But sure, our little democratic utopia has been upended by Russian Facebook ads. We used to be so honest and have such respectful fact- filled debates and discussions about the important issues of the day. It was like living inside a West Wing episode. The liberals won almost all the debates, because reality has a well known liberal bias and everybody knew it.
    Incidentally, stepping back a bit, all political factions live in their own little world. You can visit sites to the left and to the right of this one where nearly everybody disagrees with things taken for granted here. Did Putin do that too? The man is like some sort of Lovecraftian nightmare.
    Anyway, end of my ranting. . I will vote for the Democrat in 2020, even if it is Biden or Clinton come to save the Democratic Party from people like me whose brains are under the ancient chthonic spell of nameless Russian gods.

  467. We used to be so honest and have such respectful fact- filled debates and discussions about the important issues of the day.
    and do you think adding more disinformation and deception to the system is going to make that better?
    do you think leaders elected this way (of which Trump is simply our first instance) are going to care about anything you care about?
    and believe me, the quality/effectiveness of this stuff is only going to improve. it won’t just be the gullible who get mislead by it.

  468. We used to be so honest and have such respectful fact- filled debates and discussions about the important issues of the day.
    and do you think adding more disinformation and deception to the system is going to make that better?
    do you think leaders elected this way (of which Trump is simply our first instance) are going to care about anything you care about?
    and believe me, the quality/effectiveness of this stuff is only going to improve. it won’t just be the gullible who get mislead by it.

  469. Personally I find Donald’s analysis typical of what real lefty types have been saying for ages, and in essence I find it rather hard to argue with as regards the historical imperfections of domestic US politics (and for that matter UK and other western ones too), except that I am a liberal, and therefore part of the “problem”. My focus on Putin and Russia is not because I consider him the source of all or most of the problems, but because he is an outside source, with an avowed intent to weaken the systems of the liberal west (US, EU, NATO), and that therefore his internal (to the US) enablers and apologists are essentially traitors, and hypocritical ones at that by virtue of their constant deployment of faux patriotic rhetoric, rendering them legitimately vulnerable (I hope) to a particular kind of attack. If Donald sees this issue as unworthy of his time and concern, I believe that this is his prerogative, and I for one am just grateful that he, unlike many people who think similarly to him, is prepared to hold his nose and vote D in the next election for the (as he perceives it deeply flawed) greater good.

  470. Personally I find Donald’s analysis typical of what real lefty types have been saying for ages, and in essence I find it rather hard to argue with as regards the historical imperfections of domestic US politics (and for that matter UK and other western ones too), except that I am a liberal, and therefore part of the “problem”. My focus on Putin and Russia is not because I consider him the source of all or most of the problems, but because he is an outside source, with an avowed intent to weaken the systems of the liberal west (US, EU, NATO), and that therefore his internal (to the US) enablers and apologists are essentially traitors, and hypocritical ones at that by virtue of their constant deployment of faux patriotic rhetoric, rendering them legitimately vulnerable (I hope) to a particular kind of attack. If Donald sees this issue as unworthy of his time and concern, I believe that this is his prerogative, and I for one am just grateful that he, unlike many people who think similarly to him, is prepared to hold his nose and vote D in the next election for the (as he perceives it deeply flawed) greater good.

  471. But srsly, “thought leader”?
    h/t to someone I can’t remember from LGM, but the updated version is “thinkfluencer.” They weren’t serious, but it makes me feel all happy and warm inside whenever I see it.

  472. But srsly, “thought leader”?
    h/t to someone I can’t remember from LGM, but the updated version is “thinkfluencer.” They weren’t serious, but it makes me feel all happy and warm inside whenever I see it.

  473. one of those business-ese phrases that’s all the more hollow because it’s supposed to be so portentous, if not downright profound.
    also:
    Product Champion

  474. one of those business-ese phrases that’s all the more hollow because it’s supposed to be so portentous, if not downright profound.
    also:
    Product Champion

  479. believe me, the quality/effectiveness of this stuff is only going to improve. it won’t just be the gullible who get mislead by it.
    I noticed yesterday that Facebook had found it necessary to remove a couple dozen Russians-masquerading-as-“real-Americans” accounts. Only one of which had an actual Facebook presence. They were all Instagram accounts.
    And it was noted that the realism of the created images was only going to get better over time.

  480. believe me, the quality/effectiveness of this stuff is only going to improve. it won’t just be the gullible who get mislead by it.
    I noticed yesterday that Facebook had found it necessary to remove a couple dozen Russians-masquerading-as-“real-Americans” accounts. Only one of which had an actual Facebook presence. They were all Instagram accounts.
    And it was noted that the realism of the created images was only going to get better over time.

  481. I’ve witnessed a stunning lack of skepticism on social media. An unsourced picture or screenshot with some text on it is all that is needed to believe something is true.
    It’s not like I can download just about any kind of image and add whatever text to it I like, right? Oh, wait…
    No matter how many times a given instance of such a thing gets debunked or how many such things in general get debunked, some people just don’t seem to get it. They pass along already-debunked or clearly suspicious/questionable crap time and again.

  482. I’ve witnessed a stunning lack of skepticism on social media. An unsourced picture or screenshot with some text on it is all that is needed to believe something is true.
    It’s not like I can download just about any kind of image and add whatever text to it I like, right? Oh, wait…
    No matter how many times a given instance of such a thing gets debunked or how many such things in general get debunked, some people just don’t seem to get it. They pass along already-debunked or clearly suspicious/questionable crap time and again.

  483. They never picked up on Photoshop. So it’s probably not surprising that more sophisticated software, applicable to video not just still photos, is beyond their ken.

  484. They never picked up on Photoshop. So it’s probably not surprising that more sophisticated software, applicable to video not just still photos, is beyond their ken.

  485. “No matter how many times a given instance of such a thing gets debunked or how many such things in general get debunked, some people just don’t seem to get it. They pass along already-debunked or clearly suspicious/questionable crap time and again.”
    That’s the “greater fool” theory, repurposed from the stock market to RWNJ trolling.

  486. “No matter how many times a given instance of such a thing gets debunked or how many such things in general get debunked, some people just don’t seem to get it. They pass along already-debunked or clearly suspicious/questionable crap time and again.”
    That’s the “greater fool” theory, repurposed from the stock market to RWNJ trolling.

  487. I’d never heard of the Greater Fool theory, but I like it. It reminds me of nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, which I thought was by W C Fields, but turns out to be (roughly) by H L Mencken.

  488. I’d never heard of the Greater Fool theory, but I like it. It reminds me of nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, which I thought was by W C Fields, but turns out to be (roughly) by H L Mencken.

Comments are closed.