We all need to diligently investigate these claims for ourselves, before giving them any credibility, the same way we all investigated the leaks by Manning and Snowden before coming to any premature conclusions.
That's not because this time the leaks were damaging to Russia. It's just the only right thing to do!
Why Trump won:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-el...
I expect the same applies to Canada though less strongly. Among other things many of our "rural" areas are doing well from resource extraction (or were when oil was higher), and we don't have the health care desperation that the Americans do.
CIA had Russia's plans to disrupt the election. In typical fashion, Obama refused to go public before the election.
But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.
But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.
When you think about the logic here it starts to crumble. It was decisive. Yes, of course. It was a narrow result. Everything was therefore decisive.
If you focus on elections and people changing their votes and point to a collection of people who changed one and examine their loyalty you can only conclude a lower result is possible. A target group can fracture but once defined, it cannot grow (the number who voted for Obama and Trump cannot ever increase so any less than 100% back is not recovery or any less than 100% to Republicans is less than what Trump had -- of those people).
If you look at the total and see all the movements of voters, and you consider defections from both parties, the conclusions are different. How many Trump voters who voted against Obama might be repulsed by the Trump Administration? Is this group bigger or smaller than the ones Trump (or a later Republican) might retain from the Obama-Trump voters?
As well, many studies only looked at net numbers. These are the numbers of people from a group who voted one way or the other. Voting is also secret so declarations are suspect and can be politically motivated. How many of each side stay home? In fact we have heard that the numbers who stayed home were decisive (see my first comment -- of course they were). And votes migrate in different directions for different reasons at different rates. The only people who speak up are those who want to speak up -- self selecting.
In Canada we have the same issue except more parties. So poeple speak about a migration of votes at times from the NDP to Conservatives ignoring that there may be no such thing. It can look like that if some people migrate from the NDP to the Liberals and from the Liberals to the Conservatives. this can happen while Liberals are moving to the NDP and Conservatives to Liberals at different rates and some people moving from a willingness to be polled to an unwillingnes or a choice to vote or not. In the end a simple statement is made about the net migration wether anyone actually did that migration is not often questioned.
In the US voters register so a little more is known but, small number of people will change registration and not vote in the direction of their registration at the end. A small minority want to speak about it.
Former NSA Official: Dems' Russia Hacking Story Likely Bogus (and vid)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47634.htm
"Bill Binney told Tucker Carlson he has data showing that the Democrats' narrative regarding Russia hacking the DNC annd 2016 election are untrue."
Tucker Carlson? What's the matter, Sean Hannity wouldn't have him?
"Isn't this just another way of saying the DNC gave the election to Trump when they sabotaged Bernie Sanders?"
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/903025805688803332
Did Sanders Voters Tip The 2016 Election To Trump?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/sanders-voters-tip-2016-election...
"Isn't this just another way of saying the DNC gave the election to Trump when they sabotaged Bernie Sanders?"
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/903025805688803332
Did Sanders Voters Tip The 2016 Election To Trump?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/sanders-voters-tip-2016-election...
This is a fair comment. I think the prevailing view was that Trump could not win and that the battle was between Clinton and Sanders when somethign else was going on.
There is no question that Trump did benefit but I think most Sanders supporters may have seen ther actions as a protest. Very few people thought Trump could win and I think significant numbers of Sanders voters had a context of communities where Trump had no chance, quite likely unaware of the places where Trump was winning over people. I think it remains a shock to many how Trump could get over 4 in 10 voters to support him. In many respects Trump won becuase he was expected not to. If the polls had been accurate it is quite possible that he would not have won as people who may have protested or not voted would have voted to prevent that.
The story is not over either. It is possible that the backlash to Trump and exposing and the clearing out of many who hold such views could bring greater benefit and that those on the left who voted for Trump, may in fact have been correct in their gamble.
I personally know a person who was a Trump supporter as shocking as it was to me. I knew that person would only truly understand the difficulty with that position if he won -- although if I had been in the US I would not have voted for him.
Some social and environmental policy progress which would never have happened under CLinton may be possible after Trump. It is even possible that Trump's legacy may ironically be single payor healthcare for example.
The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda.
An investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign.
A number of Russian-linked Facebook ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November, according to four sources with direct knowledge of the situation.
Some of the Russian ads appeared highly sophisticated in their targeting of key demographic groups in areas of the states that turned out to be pivotal, two of the sources said. The ads employed a series of divisive messages aimed at breaking through the clutter of campaign ads online, including promoting anti-Muslim messages, sources said.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin/index.html
This truly amazing and no Josh I am not being critical of you in any way when you bring this russian thing. I want provide a histrical perpective to this issue. I remember how badly the Americans wanted to broadcast American news into the eastern block. I spent 13 years behind the iron curtain I remember those broadcast from the western euorpe were condsided American propaganda and a threat to the various governments. But ordinary people thought of them a joke rather dimsive. What was not a joke was the people would smuggle in western consumer goods.
The reason that the eastern block fell apart was poor quality consumer goods(compared to western goods, corruption, towards the end economic failure came, it became impossible not use large scale repression to keep things going.) People just lost faith in the system it was not delivering the goods. The eastern block poured so much resources it the military realm. I remember going with my mother to the black market to buy toliet paper, car batteries, jeans. When I talk about a black market, in Canadian terms giant flea markets. The authorites knew about them becasue the state could not produce enough through offical channels, if they were shot down there would riots. The soviet block could man 40,000 tanks, a truly awesome dispaly of military power. But people could not find toilet paper around, or car batteries, or jeans these not exactly not exactly high tech consumer goods. Instead of maintaining those 40,000 tanks why not close some military factories or convert them to producing more toilet paper. Regardless of my experience I think socialism is best way to organize society, but the focus should be to put general welfare and consumer goods rather than playing games of global dominance.
I provided some context for rest of my argument. That was in the past, it reminds of modern usa. In the old days the USA wanted to show case it culture and ideas they believed ideas provide no threat to the American system. Today russian broadcasts are actually consider a threat to american system. Where is the confidence of the cold war, because showing flaws of American capitalism is no longer politicaly correct. This not a reflection of russian info capablites by rather the weakness of the so called American dream. Maybe the American dream was the utilmate propaganda piece or is that more awareness of the problems of american capitalism is being showed to the public. This lack of confidence in the American way of life by the elites is stunning, where is the confidence?
Sheryl Sandberg tells Axios that Facebook owes Americans an apology for allowing foreign interference in a democratic election.
https://twitter.com/TasneemN/status/918466178695286784
This truly amazing and no Josh I am not being critical of you in any way when you bring this russian thing. I want provide a histrical perpective to this issue. I remember how badly the Americans wanted to broadcast American news into the eastern block. I spent 13 years behind the iron curtain I remember those broadcast from the western euorpe were condsided American propaganda and a threat to the various governments. But ordinary people thought of them a joke rather dimsive. What was not a joke was the people would smuggle in western consumer goods.
The reason that the eastern block fell apart was poor quality consumer goods(compared to western goods, corruption, towards the end economic failure came, it became impossible not use large scale repression to keep things going.) People just lost faith in the system it was not delivering the goods. The eastern block poured so much resources it the military realm. I remember going with my mother to the black market to buy toliet paper, car batteries, jeans. When I talk about a black market, in Canadian terms giant flea markets. The authorites knew about them becasue the state could not produce enough through offical channels, if they were shot down there would riots. The soviet block could man 40,000 tanks, a truly awesome dispaly of military power. But people could not find toilet paper around, or car batteries, or jeans these not exactly not exactly high tech consumer goods. Instead of maintaining those 40,000 tanks why not close some military factories or convert them to producing more toilet paper. Regardless of my experience I think socialism is best way to organize society, but the focus should be to put general welfare and consumer goods rather than playing games of global dominance.
I provided some context for rest of my argument. That was in the past, it reminds of modern usa. In the old days the USA wanted to show case it culture and ideas they believed ideas provide no threat to the American system. Today russian broadcasts are actually consider a threat to american system. Where is the confidence of the cold war, because showing flaws of American capitalism is no longer politicaly correct. This not a reflection of russian info capablites by rather the weakness of the so called American dream. Maybe the American dream was the utilmate propaganda piece or is that more awareness of the problems of american capitalism is being showed to the public. This lack of confidence in the American way of life by the elites is stunning, where is the confidence?
If the Soviet Union had switched to a consumer economy, it is likely that Hitler and/or the West would have destroyed it sooner.
Why Trump - Obama chose Wall Street over Main Street:
https.www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/01/thomas-frank-obama-chose-wall-street-mai...
Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears—and not of joy.
There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump.
Seeking wrote:
Today russian broadcasts are actually consider a threat to american system. Where is the confidence of the cold war, because showing flaws of American capitalism is no longer politicaly correct. This not a reflection of russian info capablites by rather the weakness of the so called American dream.
Well, I would distinguish two trains of outrage in the RussiaGate panic.
"OMG, Russia hacked the election and subverted American democracy!"
"Christ almighty, Trump got illegal assisatance from one of our global rivals in winning the election."
The first one, indeed, indicates a sublimated loss of confidence in American stature. "Hacking the election" would only work if American voters were willing to care about the hacked documents in the first place, which would mean that either SoS Hillary really was doing bad stuff, or the voters are obsessed with trivialities. And it's actually impossible to "hack an election" in any event, an election not being a technological device.
But I don't think the second sentiment is neccessarily ridiculous. You know that business about Pearson accepting help from some Kennedy hacks to defeat Diefenbaker in the '63 election? Well, this would be something like that, except imagine that Pearson was alleged to have violated Canadian law in order to contact those guys. And throw in Pearson going on TV and asking the Yanks to release stolen government memos in order to hurt Dief. I would certainly have expected the Tories(not to mention the RCMP) to make an issue of that.
Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears—and not of joy.
There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump.
1. Trump didn't want to win the election and won it by accident despite the best efforts of everyone involved, including himself.
2. Trump wanted to win at any cost, so he colluded with Russia to make it happen.
I'm having a tough time reconciling these two. Can anyone help?
Sure. Trump probably didn’t think he’d win but wanted to do everything in his power to tar “Crooked Hillary” and to enhance his post-campaign financial positi9n.
This also fits in very well with the hypothesis that the Russians owned Trump long before 2015, when he decided to run for President. I have posted numerous articles detailing this process, which started at least as early as 1984.
Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears—and not of joy.
There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump.
1. Trump didn't want to win the election and won it by accident despite the best efforts of everyone involved, including himself.
2. Trump wanted to win at any cost, so he colluded with Russia to make it happen.
I'm having a tough time reconciling these two. Can anyone help?
Sure, easily. As is increasingly obvious except to the chumps, it never happened...
If only the chumps would respect and listen to the stable genius!!
No. Check out the TRNN interview with Max Blumenthal on the KremlinGate thread...
From JKR:
If only the chumps would respect and listen to the stable genius!!
The only stable genius I know is Mr. Ed.
It is also possible that the Russians also did not want Trump to win. They may have wanted to have Clinton elected but so damaged that she woudl be ineffectual and with a GOP Senate and House -- which is what nearly happened.
Trump isn't Another Hitler. He's Another Obama
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48545.htm
"...Nobody wants to hear this. The Democrats still want to believe that the sitting president is simultaneously a Nazis, a Kremlin secret agent, an idiot and a lunatic, and Trump supporters want to believe that he's a populist savior fighting to liberate the nation from the claws of the deep state. Because of their partisan blindness they will both find reasons to believe they've got either a savior or a traitor in the White House despite the fact that their country's actual policy and behavior remains more or less the same..."
Bannon is gone from Breitbart.
Steve Bannon leaves Breitbart:
Former White House strategist Steve Bannon stepped down from his position at Breitbart News on Tuesday, less than a week after he excoriated Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr in book excerpts obtained by the Guardian, and days after he expressed “regret” over those remarks.
...In a statement last week, Trump said: “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.” Not long afterward, he dubbed Bannon “Sloppy Steve” in a series of tweets.
...When Bannon returned to Breitbart, he (Bannon) initially celebrated the reunion. In an interview with the Weekly Standard that month, he said: “Now I’m free. I’ve got my hands back on my weapons. Someone said, ‘it’s Bannon the Barbarian.’ I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There’s no doubt.”
...The president also praised his former strategist at the time, tweeting: “Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews … maybe even better than ever before. Fake News needs the competition!”
It strikes me that Trump generates almost no loyalty. All of his toadies appear to be there for their own purposes. More and more like Stalin every day.
It strikes me that Trump generates almost no loyalty.
And to be fair, gives almost none. His whole inner circle is like Reservoir Dogs.
Facebook "embeds," Russia and the Trump campaign's secret weapon
Brad Parscale, digital director for Trump's campaign, was a critical factor in the president's election. Now questions surround how he did it
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-embeds-russia-and-the-trump-campai...
Democrats Choose CIA Agent For Congressional Nomintion
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/14/prim-j14.html
"The Democratic Party continues to select candidates drawn to an extraordinary extent from the national security apparatus - ex CIA, military intelligence and combat commanders, as well as civilian national security officials..."
