Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

I feel like whatever happens to go wrong in the coming years, the spin will be relying on speaking about what wasn't done during the Obama presidency until whoever is asking just gives up and drops it.

tom i'm just messing with you bud come on lighten up a bit

yeah when I find myself getting the Morbs on these threads I need to remind myself to learn how to use the "second thought" thread

yesterday was indeed a very long day though

What merit does Putin even have when he says they won't retaliate? The country that did secret hacking spy stuff and was discovered promises not to do any more top secret hacking spy stuff?

I feel like whatever happens to go wrong in the coming years, the spin will be relying on speaking about what wasn't done during the Obama presidency until whoever is asking just gives up and drops it.

this is what Cameron and Osborne did in the UK for 6 years and sadly it worked like a dream

An interesting 'innocent' explanation of Trump's behaviors with regards to the Russian hacking is similar.

Say you're Trump. You have nothing to do with this. You know nothing about it. But think about all the crooks and gamers and sleazeballs around your campaign. There's Manafort, Stone, Page ... all their associates, not to mention your business associates with ties to Russian organized crime. (Stone publicly said he had some sort of a backchannel to Wikileaks.)

If you're Trump, how confident are you that a real investigation wouldn't turn up anything weird? Probably not very.

This is why he isnt taking briefings imo. He doesn't want to inadvertently say something incriminating. Helluva way to kick off a presidency.

I think it has more to do with the fact that he can't concentrate for more than 30 seconds at a time. Hasn't he already said things that would be incriminating if they weren't made up?

Woodja lookit these two BFFs

I was waiting for this moment to reveal itself.

Lol trumps tweet today. Openly praising Putin for his response to the sanctions.

We'll all be speaking Russian this time next year.

This has been a pretty good prank on America, you have to admit.

actually, I think you'll find that YOU'RE the puppet

fucking lol, he even pinned the tweet so people see it right away

I believe matryoshka is the preferred metaphor.

the likelihood that Trump has massive financial interests in Russia OR he's being blackmailed has got to be approaching 100% at this point, there's no other explanation is there?

Maybe he just thinks it's funny to give off an impression of grotesque impropriety and watch people's heads spin. Who knows

There's no decent explanation for any of this shit tbf

The man doesn't laugh! He doesn't believe in it

this is what Cameron and Osborne did in the UK for 6 years and sadly it worked like a dream

Though, tbf, it worked like a dream because the opposition never challenged them whenever they blamed everything on Labour's 'overspending'

Also the entire media repeated the Cameron and Osborne line and trotted it out at every opportunity like it was fucking gospel.

... which I hope, and assume, will not happen in the US.

aye i'm sure the american media will maintain its impeccable track record of tenacious, interrogative reporting

i've lost the thread on all of this shit. greenwald and tiabbi saying the evidence put out is weak and calling out the left for scapegoating Russia; blah blah. who has read it here? I will trust whatever you guys say

trust Dennis Perrin's Tweets, akm

What we know, for certain, is that the Democrats lost the election that they won by 3 million votes because everyone hates them, and they are liars, who are wrong, and unAmerica in their beliefs, which they do not possess, being wholly mercenary.

Trump will be a good Presidetn, because he has embraced the Russian leadership, and he got more Real Americans (white people living within a few hours of the Great Lakes) to vote for him, by several thousand.

The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.

Also, the only guy on the Democratic team who knows how to throw a punch just figured out, as he's retiring, that the youngest person on his bench is 70.

The Year Liberals Fell In Love With the CIA All Over Again

(ie why i will always hate liberals more than right-wing lunatics)

yeah I think we figured that out, you big brave courage man of true progress

you know it

kill America

the Intel Gangster God first obv

Can you help kill America from San Angelo, TX? I would like to start a fundraiser to relocate you there, it's a perfect location from which you can help us plan the resistance

come on Morbs when has the CIA ever let us down

i don't do TX aside from Austin

(and never during SXSW)

I gave up my part in the Resistance in '84 when our doom became apparent

Like you ever had a part in anything

i was a gay activist, fyi, until they made me vomit all the time.

ban marriage

The Year Liberals Fell In Love With the CIA All Over Again

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Saturday, December 31, 2016 3:19 AM (eighteen minutes ago)

this line is ridiculous, man.

the evidence that putin's government interfered with our election to some degree is pretty strong, but apparently i'm supposed to doubt it because...it would mean agreeing with the cia, and liberals aren't supposed to do that, even when they're right?

from my pov this is an example of the cia actually doing something in keeping with its original charter and purpose: gathering intelligence from hostile foreign powers. i admit i didn't realize that for some leftists the analysis doesn't go any deeper than "cia bad."

I'm still dubious, as per this Taibbi article:

This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

At one point we learn that the code name the U.S. intelligence community has given to Russian cyber shenanigans is GRIZZLY STEPPE, a sexy enough detail.

But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

the evidence that putin's government interfered with our election to some degree is pretty strong

I'd love to see it. But the board pro would chortle at my "naivete."

That's some catch, that Catch-22.

Absent evidence, how about the pretty clearly pro-Trump FBI eventually coming around to the CIA's take on the situation?

This Leonid Bershidsky piece is also useful on the lack of evidence:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-22/why-i-still-don-t-buy-the-russian-hacking-story

The gist of his, Greenwald and Taibbi's positions is that it is entirely plausible that there was state-directed hacking but that the evidence released, which is largely from third-party commercial organisations and none of it slam-dunk, is not strong enough to support reporting it as fact. There is the separate question of whether, if there was state directed hacking, that was the breach that led to to Wikileaks having the info - which again is plausible but not proven. Bershidsky also believes, if the US has evidence, the response from Obama has been incredibly weak - both in not showing more of it and in the inept handling of the new sanctions.

The media throwing this into the mix with a bunch of stuff that is neither proven nor particularly plausible - Manafort worked for Russia! Russia hacked the voting machines (which Taibbi points out about half of Clinton voters believe, according to one poll)! Wikileaks is feeding info to Roger Stone!, etc, to strengthen the case is not helpful.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

the iraq-wmd mess happened under an administration that was eager for an excuse to go to war in iraq. i don't see a clearcut motive for manipulating the evidence here -- who benefits? not obama, who was reluctant to even bring any of this up. not the fbi, whose director intervened in the election to hurt clinton. and, imo, not the cia -- trump's about to become their boss. it's not even clear what making up evidence about a trump-putin connection would really accomplish -- it's not going to stop him from taking office, and it doesn't seem to have changed the minds of anyone who voted for him. taibbi speculates that the whole thing might be "a cynical ass-covering campaign" by the democrats -- so the democrats somehow got the cia to do this? all of the objections strike me as really airy and way more speculative and grasping-at-straws than the actual allegations are.

The most common argument seems to be that the CIA / broader foreign policy establishment has a longstanding antipathy towards Russia (justifiably or otherwise) and wants to constrain Trump before he takes office in the belief that he will either be too weak or too favourable to deal with them strongly unless backed into a corner

i find it more than plausible that russian intelligence was behind the DNC/podesta leaks -- i've seen and will see no actual evidence but this is a mundane enough proposition for me to believe even from the dreaded cia, the motive is there on the surface, it didn't exactly take a neuromancer to accomplish (they won't believe "i meant to type illegitimate" when they read about it in the future, when they can read again; i don't even believe it now), etc

as far as i can tell that's all that's officially been alleged? yet there are these whispers everywhere, i can hear them even all the way out here, that something much more serious has happened, as the statistic SV quotes from taibbi makes clear -- there is not only no evidence for this but no real accusation at all right? yet everyone is talking about it -- friends both flesh and not tell me they're sure Something will Happen, that obama has put Things In Motion, behind the Scenes --

in the meantime the washington post -- which a moment ago i was actually looking forward to making a devil's bargain with, totally down w idea of dickens villain jeff bezos as khodorovskian opposition -- publishes a guide to Fake News from which we learn that content-farmed trump propaganda is exactly as Fake as just about anything to the left of the wapo? they've since walked this back a lil and admitted that they essentially just saw the list on their facebook feed and thought it was interesting -- but basically medialand this holiday season when not talking about russia has been talking about how you just Can't Trust anything you read outside of a small number of fragile and (in the grey lady's case) congenitally obsequious organs -- and at the same time it's true, every time i go to the supermarket for more pie i stand in the checkout line reading about the 500 muslim spies in obama's cia -- everything on all sides is confusion and paranoia and juicy signifiers and hints of some kind of occult interagency struggle, and meanwhile fascists are moving into the white house --

it's impossible for me not to think of the Russia Thing -- the fixation on the email leaks as the thing that brought trump, glommed quietly onto this weird amorphous but incredibly serious other suspicion nobody has any actual details about -- as a coping mechanism, and a dangerous one, because it so neatly extracts the single part of this disaster that's potentially not america's fault and blows it up into an unprecedented emergency that if real would have to immediately consume all the nation's attention and energy and render all other lenses thru which to view the election secondary yet would also be impossible to do anything about except click and stay informed

assuming trump takes office and nothing immediately comes of this stuff, i fear a nightmare mediascape where fact-light nationalist paranoia maneuvers the mainstream opposition into playing a weird kind of role in whatever fucked-up symbolic national psychodrama trump is about to try and replace reality with -- and anti-trumpists who don't play that role but instead blame america for what is happening will be portrayed as useful idiots if not actual traitors (cf the game theory guy on snowden, manning, every notable american dissident of the last decade: they're all kremlin assets whether they know it or not)--

the only thing that stops people from bewilderment in the next four years is organizing right? aside from its other virtues i mean. getting some collective sense of ground under yr feet. a localized sense that you can also extrapolate in2 a broader 1. because the national infosphere is going to be endless chaos.

as for the electoral college i guess others covered it but what received skepticism was not that america would be juster without the thing but the idea that this would be the issue to unite the country against fascism.

(when i say "blame america" i mean holistically, as a giant failing system, recognizing the dem party and bipartisan administrative/media class' contribution to this thru hubris and political decay and yes corruption, in addition to midwestern voters' thru succumbing to hate and the dang millennials thru not showing up and the gop thru being a nihilist death cult for 50odd years)

I'm sorry but your fugue appears to be full of straw men

i find it more than plausible that russian intelligence was behind the DNC/podesta leaks -- i've seen and will see no actual evidence but this is a mundane enough proposition for me to believe even from the dreaded cia, the motive is there on the surface, it didn't exactly take a neuromancer to accomplish (they won't believe "i meant to type illegitimate" when they read about it in the future, when they can read again; i don't even believe it now), etc

as far as i can tell that's all that's officially been alleged? yet there are these whispers everywhere, i can hear them even all the way out here, that something much more serious has happened, as the statistic SV quotes from taibbi makes clear -- there is not only no evidence for this but no real accusation at all right? yet everyone is talking about it -- friends both flesh and not tell me they're sure Something will Happen, that obama has put Things In Motion, behind the Scenes --

yeah i have to say i'm a bit confused about all this too -- maybe i've missed some reporting over the holidays when i haven't been paying as much attention but to my knowledge this was the extent of the accusations as well -- that they were behind the wikileaks stuff and the intention was to hurt HRC and help trump. and sure, if true that would be very bad, but that's not....hacking the election. people seem to be making all sorts of inferences that are not only not supported by evidence but not even supported by any reporting i've seen

Did any of you see the report that Russia for some reason hacked into Vermont's energy grid? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html

What's up with that?