Fwd: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did. (less bluster, more evidence)

Tue Jan 10 12:35:39 CST 2017

Comey speaks again and the estimable Matty Yglesias asks a question:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/818888179235352576

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sen Lindsay Graham(!) at the Sessions' sessions: "I have no doubt that,
> etc.".
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Simple facts:
>>  1.There isn’t a chance in hell that Putin caused Americans to vote for
>> Trump.  Trump worked with pre-existing anger and hate, and made typical
>> lame sales pitch that he would Make America Great Again and we’d be back to
>> grabbin pussy like the good old days.  about 49% of american voters really
>> are that gullible…. Emails were just fuel on a burning fire and probably
>> were an inside leak from Americans who hate Hillary. Suspiciously, Trump
>> did get tremendous amounts of free coverage from the big media networks.
>> Maybe they are geting paid by the Russians too, but probably they just went
>> for the local cash flow.
>> 2. Trump appears to aspire to be a Russian style strong man with a team
>> of rapacious oligarchs so of course Putin likes that. There is actually no
>> international crime in favoring assholes. Netanyahu also liked Trump and
>> probably has far more influence on US politics. Won’t nobody be after his
>> ass, though. People all over the world weigh in on our elections, make up
>> internet shit etc. The alternative is a police state of which we have too
>> much already.
>> 3 War with Russia and Nato based invasions are a bad idea. A real bad,
>> stupid, fucked up idea which can easily be avoided.
>> 4 America is not a champion of Democracy but a self interested empire
>> addicted to oil and theft. Dropping bombs is not a good way to make
>> peaceful democracies. Ignoring black lives gunned down in the street is not
>> a good way to get out the vote. We have our own problems and shouldn’t be
>> starting wars that only multiply suffering.
>> 5 I  suggest that insulting people is not a good tactic of persuasive
>> discourse and your list isn’t that great either.
>> 6 for bonus points   Russia didn’t kill millions of Vietnamese , Laotians
>> and Cambodians, Russia didn’t send Americans to die in those wars. Russia
>> did not support murderous coups in Chile Argentina Guatemala, the Dominican
>> Republic etc. Russia presided over a nasty totalitarian state and engaged
>> in idiotic showdowns witht the US but they have also gone through big
>> changes and reviving the cold war is  a     shitty plan. There are a lot of
>> people on this planet who don’t admire either of these big shots and their
>> little habit of polluting the planet with fossil fuels and nukes and
>> terror. We should all feel some responsibility to work for  major changes.
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:40 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Simple facts:
>> >
>> > 1. Russia did its active best via internet hacks to get Trump elected.
>> > 2. When Trump got elected they celebrated.
>> > 3. Trump has deep money support from Russian mobsters (like Putin).
>> > 4. Trump campaigned on weakening NATO, and thinks Russian sanctions are
>> "political" (meaning unjust).
>> > 5. Trump is the first President ever to be actively supported by
>> Russia, our 20th Century premier enemy.
>> >
>> > Go figure.
>> > David Morris
>> >
>> > On Monday, January 9, 2017, Matthew Taylor <matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The "Russia hacked the election" hysteria is so outrageously overblown.
>> There are so many more pressing issues.
>> >
>> > The fact is, no one in the Democratic party and none of the liberal
>> pundits were at all prepared for Trump's election. Their trusty charts and
>> technocratic methodologies and quantifiable data showed otherwise.
>> Shockingly (not), that failed at predicting human behavior.
>> >
>> > The Democrats pulled a Dale Earnhardt. They crashed into the fucking
>> wall and burned because they couldn't turn Left. But instead of admitting
>> their own shortcomings and the pressing need for reforms, they're working
>> themselves into a frenzy over this Russia stuff.  I think there's a lot of
>> sense in this article, which I excerpted a relevant part of below:
>> >
>> > Before anything else, let’s remember what Russia’s “hacking the
>> election” (a bizarre term) is actually supposed to have entailed to begin
>> with. If we assume all the facts as alleged, Vladimir Putin did not
>> actually change the result of the election by throwing away ballots or
>> hacking voting machines (even though many Democrats evidently believe this
>> to be the case). He did not send Russian agents to pose as voters, or
>> exercise some form of sophisticated mind-control. The allegation, instead,
>> is that the Russian government embarrassed the Democratic Party by
>> releasing a series of documents from the Democratic National Committee and
>> the email account of John Podesta.
>> >
>> > Now, the documents in question are not alleged to be fabricated. The
>> Clinton team made some noises suggesting this was the case early on, but
>> there is now almost complete consensus that they were real. So the
>> allegation here is that the Russian government embarrassed the Democrats by
>> exposing things about the party that were perfectly true. These included
>> the biases of Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the primaries, the leaking of
>> debate questions to the Clinton campaign by CNN contributor Donna Brazile,
>> and Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs. (Another part of the
>> strategy, according to the recently-released intelligence report, involved
>> broadcasting a documentary on Russian television favorably depicting the
>> Occupy Wall Street movement. One might observe that running a program on
>> Russian state TV is an unusual way to attempt to influence voters in
>> Michigan and Wisconsin.)
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Either you or Laura tell me what "specifics" you want refuted or STFU.
>> >
>> > Your digital signatures crap sounds a lot like Truther crap.  Are you a
>> Truther?  You sound like one.  If so, you lost me @ go.  Talk about info
>> bubbles!
>> >
>> > David Morris
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, January 9, 2017, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>> > Actually the Intercept( the digital journal edited by Greenwald) has
>> gone into more detail about the quality of the allegations and their
>> digital signature than anyone I have read.( a list of articles can be
>> provided) Laura asked you to address specifics but I hear only louder
>> repetition. As for Obama , there are many reasons to distrust him and that
>> mistrust has been articulated by  respectable black intellectuals also.
>> Also it was not just Republicans projecting the nonsense about WMD. The
>> vote on the Iraq war was bipartisan with Hillary as a decisive voice.
>> >   The fact that Trump is obnoxious and dangerous simply does not mean
>> credible evidence has been provided that Russia was decisive in the
>> election. The claims are unspecific; they were  made by known liars,  and
>> they need to be examined by neutral internet experts.
>> >
>> > One of my concerns is that this 'Russia did it’ story becomes an excuse
>> to ignore the far more obvious and serious flaws in our electoral process
>> like the 75,000 votes in Detroit discounted because the voting machines
>> can’t read what can easily be read by humans, the long lines in black
>> districts etc.  Sadly, when Jill Stein challenged the process in Detroit
>> plenty of Trump lawyers showed up for the recount but few to no lawyers
>> from the DNC.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Jan 9, 2017, at 9:44 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > All Greenwald says in this interview is "Don't believe [anything]
>> that you hear from US intelligence."  No more than that.  We know Bush lied
>> us into Iraq, but do we believe Obama is lying us into believing that
>> Russia hacked the election for Trump?  The implied symmetry is crap.
>> > >
>> > > Why do you give him more credence than Obama?
>> > >
>> > > David Morris
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:13 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > > As a courageous investigative journalist, do you think Greenwald's
>> now become a mouthpiece for Putin merely because Russia cagily gave his
>> past source Snowden asylum? Is that really all it takes to buy his
>> collusion? Or is there some other reason for his alleged bias that you're
>> speaking of. Which statements of his on the clip do you specifically
>> disagree with?
>> > >
>> > > LK
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: David Morris
>> > > Sent: Jan 9, 2017 5:07 PM
>> > > To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>> > > Cc: P-list
>> > > Subject: Re: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He
>> Did.
>> > >
>> > > Nice try to paint your stance as beleaguered minority one. But the
>> point is that Greenwald is not unbiased when it comes to Russia.
>> > >
>> > > David Morris
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:04 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > > Is there any way to dissent from orthodoxy without being called a
>> lunatic, a dupe or an axe-grinder?
>> > >
>> > > Laura
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: David Morris
>> > > Sent: Jan 9, 2017 5:00 PM
>> > > To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>> > > Cc: P-list
>> > > Subject: Re: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He
>> Did.
>> > >
>> > > Greenwald is NOT a reliable source in this case.  His axe grinding is
>> as obvious as hell.
>> > >
>> > > David Morris
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:55 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > > As a Pynchon reader, I can simultaneously hold two ideas in my brain,
>> one of which is supported and one of which is not supported by the liberal
>> establishment: 1. Trump is a horror; and 2. Putin wasn't responsible for
>> his election.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reli
>> able-cnntv/
>> > >
>> > > Laura
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: David Morris
>> > > Sent: Jan 9, 2017 4:35 PM
>> > > To: P-list
>> > > Subject: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.
>> > >
>> > > Thomas Eckhardt was oh so concerned about the Ukraine.  Not that it
>> was being annexed by Russia, but that some of those wanting freedom from
>> Russia were nazis.  Now the US is being annexed by nazis with the help of
>> Russia.  Where is his concern now?
>> > >
>> > > David Morris
>> > >
>> > > http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/did-putin-swin
>> g-election-trump-course-he-did
>> > >
>> > > Given how close the election was, there's a pretty good chance that
>> Putin's campaign of cyber-chaos had enough oomph to swing things all by
>> itself.
>> > >
>> > > I'm a little surprised this hasn't produced more panic. In the United
>> States I understand why it hasn't: Democrats don't want to sound like sore
>> losers and Republicans don't care as long as their guy won. But what about
>> the rest of the world?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> >
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170110/a653ef96/attachment.html>