Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Pickman's model]

There's one in St Lucia.....

Yeh. a monarch. right.

 

[Yossarian]

Of all the names that have ever been, only one has never and will never grace a monarch: there will never be a king nigel

King Gary and King Neil also seem unlikely.

 

[Brainaddict]

Some pro-Clintonites going as far as to wonder whether Trump was blackmailed and/or paid by Russia - remember the Slate story about communication between a Trump server and a Russian bank or something?
Anyway, it all looks a bit tenuous and desperate until more evidence comes along. Here's Greenwald on the DNC hack: Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

 

[butchersapron]

Russian interference probably didn't swing it, though the "You did it to yourself" narrative does kind of sidestep the fact that there was a lot of voter suppression and intimidation going on.

As terrible a candidate as she was, Clinton managed to get more votes than any presidential candidate in history whose name wasn't Barack Obama. Seems like she might have won the Electoral College as well if it wasn't for things like Wisconsin's voter ID law and Trump telling his supporters to monitor polling places in Democratic-leaning parts of swing states - Clinton voters weren't particularly enthusiastic to begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility of gun-toting crazies hanging around polling places put quite a few of them off voting.

If you just look at the absolute numbers with taking into account the growth in the electorate then Trump was also the most successful Republican candidate ever as well as the 2nd most voted for full stop - rather than HC.

 

[squirrelp]

The evidence supposedly comes from CIA sources talking to the AP, Washington Post, etc - not outlets whose word should be taken as gospel, granted, but sources I'd consider more reliable than Donald Trump or Julian Assange.

Why?
Julian Assange clearly knows first hand who leaked the DNC emails, and he has said that the Russians has nothing to do with it.

The Washington Post does not: they are taking the CIA's word for it.
Do you consider the CIA to be a 'reliable source' of information?

 

[Idris2002]

Why?
Julian Assange clearly knows first hand who leaked the DNC emails, and he has said that the Russians has nothing to do with it.

The Washington Post does not: they are taking the CIA's word for it.
Do you consider the CIA to be a 'reliable source' of information?

And if you can't trust Julian Assange, who can you trust?

 

[teqniq]

This does not bode well.

Donald Trump team asks for list of Department of Energy workers who have attended climate change talks

 

[DotCommunist]

This does not bode well.

Donald Trump team asks for list of Department of Energy workers who have attended climate change talks

having completely lost the rational argument against climate change its moves like this, and the proposed gutting of NASA's earth sciences projects, that lead inevitably to the conclusion that its going to be made to go away by pretending its not there aand doing the level best to make sure no one can prove it is with things like research and facts

 

[teqniq]

Pretty much.

 

[CRI]

Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America

Good op ed piece here in of all places Teen Vogue. Having said that, the editor is an African American woman, and a considerable proportion of folks I've seen so far willing to call it how it is without the, "gee how did this happen?" and "well, let's wait and see . . . " have been African American women.


The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election, and President-elect Donald Trump dismissed the story as if it were a piece of fake news. "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," his transition team wrote in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again'."

It wasn't one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history, so presumably that's another red-herring lie to distract from Trump treating the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States like it is some rogue blogger to be cast to the trolls. A foreign government's interference in our election is a threat to our freedom, and the President-elect's attempt to undermine the American people's access to that information undermines the very foundation upon which this country was built. It's also nothing new.

Trump won the Presidency by gas light. His rise to power has awakened a force of bigotry by condoning and encouraging hatred, but also by normalizing deception. Civil rights are now on trial, though before we can fight to reassert the march toward equality, we must regain control of the truth. If that seems melodramatic, I would encourage you to dump a bucket of ice over your head while listening to “Duel of the Fates." Donald Trump is our President now; it’s time to wake up.

"Gas lighting" is a buzzy name for a terrifying strategy currently being used to weaken and blind the American electorate. We are collectively being treated like Bella Manningham in the 1938 Victorian thriller from which the term "gas light" takes its name. In the play, Jack terrorizes his wife Bella into questioning her reality by blaming her for mischievously misplacing household items which he systematically hides. Doubting whether her perspective can be trusted, Bella clings to a single shred of evidence: the dimming of the gas lights that accompanies the late night execution of Jack’s trickery. The wavering flame is the one thing that holds her conviction in place as she wriggles free of her captor’s control.

To gas light is to psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity, and that’s precisely what Trump is doing to this country. He gained traction in the election by swearing off the lies of politicians, while constantly contradicting himself, often without bothering to conceal the conflicts within his own sound bites. He lied to us over and over again, then took all accusations of his falsehoods and spun them into evidence of bias

 

[Casually Red]

Staggering amounts of money, just staggering.

eta: esp how much Hilary spent this time, to lose.

To lose to that utter clown .

 

[CRI]

So things like racist voter suppression are just "sort of baked into" things, while Clinton's failure to reach out to white evangelical voters, where she might have been able to improve her margins by maybe 5%, are an issue that needs to be looked at?

If you're OK with giant turds being sort of baked into things, I will not be visiting your bakery anytime soon.

Clinton was a terrible candidate, as I almost feel obligated to acknowledge every time I post about the election, but there a lot of factors beyond her failures that need to be considered when looking at her election loss, including fake news, probable Russian shenanigans, the racist voter ID policies that Republicans don't even bother denying, FBI fuckery, Trump's almost unprecedented encouragement of polling place thuggery, and the Electoral College system that turned losers like George W. Bush and Donald Trump into winners.

Bernie Sanders also seems to be getting a free pass. If he had been able to persuade black voters in Southern states to vote for him in the Democratic primaries, he might be president now. The fact that they didn't might be his fault, not Hillary Clinton's.

I don't remember when there was ever a US presidential candidate that wasn't seen as "flawed" in some way. Reagan was a divorcee. Carter didn't have any experience in Washington. GW Bush came across as stupid. Obama was too young and too new to politics. You would get editorials highlighting their flaws sure, but I've never seen a candidate be so consistently vilified in the media as Hilary Clinton. Maybe a part of it was that she was in cabinet relatively recently, so her actions were more "visible" than say a Senator or Governor who's actions would probably not be much known outside their state. But that couldn't be all of it. It's not like Trump's a shrinking violet and the public knew nothing of his career. I remember finding it weird that friends and relatives who'd always voted straight Democratic ticket expressed "reservations" about her, when they'd never done that about a candidate before. When I asked why, I only ever got a vague answer.

Throughout the campaign, the mainstream media have been hammering out messages about both candidates, using specific words, focusing on specific issues and virtually ignoring others. I saw this yesterday and though yep, I can see why even party line Democrats and "I'm with Her" folks still felt ambivalent without much substance to back their niggles up. Repeated messages seep into your brains.

There was a post somewhere yesterday about the Russian involvement in the election - saying that part of the methodology was to sow seeds of doubt in Clinton's reputation, capabilities. Yep, that's a pretty successful strategy.

When you said, "Clinton was a terrible candidate, as I almost feel obligated to acknowledge every time I post about the election . . ." it made me think of this.

Saw this graphic yesterday and it kind of illustrates what I mean.

 

[squirrelp]

And if you can't trust Julian Assange, who can you trust?

I'm not sure of the intention behind this question which appears rhetorical?
However it is a fair point that one need trust neither party.

Even if one did not trust Assange (wikileaks has now a distinguished reputation, having not once been exposed to have published false information) that would be no reason to start trusting the CIA

 

[CRI]

And here's the soon-to-be US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, Chair and CEO of ExxonMobil, receiving his Order of Friendship medal from President Putin last year.

And the AP, increasingly sounding like Russia Today, describes him thus (along with this puff piece):



Funny thing is, folks who've had distant cousins serving in the Russian military, or who travelled to Russia on school or trade union exchange programmes have trouble getting security clearance for civil service jobs or the US military. But hey, this guy goes straight to the top. Yippee!

 

[CRI]

I'm not sure of the intention behind this question which appears rhetorical?
However it is a fair point that one need trust neither party.

Even if one did not trust Assange (wikileaks has now a distinguished reputation, having not once been exposed to have published false information) that would be no reason to start trusting the CIA

When the president elect of the US says he doesn't trust the CIA, or other institutions within the nation he is about to lead, that is a problem. Same with making up the list of researchers on climate change. This is stuff authoritarian leaders do, y'know to undermine any voices that oppose them. Next step is to get rid of those voices and institutions and replace them with "friendly" ones.

 

[squirrelp]

When the president elect of the US says he doesn't trust the CIA, or other institutions within the nation he is about to lead, that is a problem.

There is indeed a problem, but the problem there is that the CIA are propagandists, and untrustworthy. I think it is fantastic that Trump has called that.

Same with making up the list of researchers on climate change. This is stuff authoritarian leaders do, y'know to undermine any voices that oppose them. Next step is to get rid of those voices and institutions and replace them with "friendly" ones.

I share great concern over Trump's attitude to climate change.

 

[CRI]

Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

Republicans have a different explanation for why no documents from their networks were ever released. Over the past several months, officials from the Republican committee have consistently said that their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked. On Friday, a senior committee official said he had no comment.

Well, clearly the DNC servers were breached by "someone," and the RNC have denied theirs were, which seems a bit fishy.

Could be plenty of juicy titbits not just on Trump but on other GOP politicians that might not play so well in the heartland. Hmm, I wonder what that could be used for?

 

[butchersapron]

When people - people who put themselves on the left - say they trust the CIA and that others need to as well, then that's a whole other load of trouble.

 

[squirrelp]

Well, clearly the DNC servers were breached by "someone," and the RNC have denied theirs were, which seems a bit fishy.

I think you are getting caught up in the game trying to make sense of something founded on nonsense to start with. I suggest:

• The DNC leaks were not the result of hacking: they were leaks from within the DNC
• The republicans are correctly claiming that they were not hacked, because neither party was hacked
• The CIA is just making stuff up

 

[squirrelp]

From Craig Murray's blog

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.

The CIA's Absence of Conviction - Craig Murray

 

[Casually Red]

You would get editorials highlighting their flaws sure, but I've never seen a candidate be so consistently vilified in the media as Hilary Clinton.

Have you heard of a guy called Donald Trump ? The mass rapist in the pay of the Kremlin who stole the election with Putins help ? That massive threat to US national security who can't be trusted with nuclear codes ? That's what the MSM say about him .The same MSM that went with this without even waiting for the vote .

And what's with this you trusting the CIA over Assange about ? are you actually serious ?

 

[Casually Red]

When the president elect of the US says he doesn't trust the CIA, or other institutions within the nation he is about to lead, that is a problem. Same with making up the list of researchers on climate change. This is stuff authoritarian leaders do, y'know to undermine any voices that oppose them. Next step is to get rid of those voices and institutions and replace them with "friendly" ones.

It's about fucking time a US president said he doesn't trust the CIA .

Trump is a deeply deeply flawed individual . To the point of being an atrocious individual . But him not trusting the CIA is not a flaw in the slightest .

Your apparent trust and deference towards them is a flaw of your own you might want to reflect upon .

 

[CRI]

Far right, far left, full circle.

 

[butchersapron]

You both seem pretty right wing. So yeah, you're all the same. Or something.

 

[Idris2002]

Far right, far left, full circle.

Thus, the cosmic ballet continues.

 

[Yossarian]

Why?
Julian Assange clearly knows first hand who leaked the DNC emails, and he has said that the Russians has nothing to do with it.

The Washington Post does not: they are taking the CIA's word for it.
Do you consider the CIA to be a 'reliable source' of information?

WikiLeaks and Washington Post both consider themselves journalistic organizations, if I have to choose one or the other I'm going to trust the less Assangey of the two.

 

[J Ed]

Far right, far left, full circle.

 

[J Ed]

Things I have learned from this page of this thread: The CIA is 'woke' now and New Deal Democrats are basically the same as the far-right

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'll bet that if the CIA report said that the Russians had attempted to rig the election in Clinton's favor, Trump would be singing the praises of the CIA right now.

People are forgetting something: Trump has problems with, and attacks, anyone who disagrees with the Trump narrative - it has nothing to do with facts or proof.

Trump is doing to the CIA what he did to that Carrier Union leader; what he did to Lauren Batchelder, what he did against a number of people and institutions during the campaign.

Is the CIA correct in its conclusions about Russian tampering? Who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. But Trump doesn't care. Trump just wants to silence anyone who says anything that he disagrees with.

 

[Idris2002]

Things I have learned from this page of this thread: The CIA is 'woke' now and New Deal Democrats are basically the same as the far-right

Is this what you call a "teachable moment"?