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

[Johnny Canuck3]

ffs

 

[Pickman's model]

The posts made by ViolentPanda on page 427 need to pinned at the top of P&P & WP forums. The P&P & WP regulars need to bear with those, myself included, who (a) have internalised the societal structures we live in and (b) who aren't as informed or possess the level of critical thinking the regulars expect us to be/have.

Esp post 12782

 

[Pickman's model]

No,it bliddy doesn't!

Yeh but your taste buds haven't atrophied from drinking shit lager

 

[JimW]

It seems to be received wisdom that "she was a terrible candidate." I don't expect any candidates to be perfect, but I still haven't seen any compelling explanations why she was so much worse than any other candidate put forward by either the GOP or Democrat party say in the past 50 years...

Well regardless of my view of her her failure to motivate even her registered base against an absolutely shocking alternative suggests something was wrong with the choice. Misogyny has been suggested but can't believe that explains the stay-at-homes among the young etc.

 

[Casually Red]

For those interested, here's a few pieces on the intersections of race, class, gender and other factors in the US context, particularly related to the elections.

For others, move along, nothing to see here.

Race, Income, and Elections: The White (Male?) Working Class
The Plight Of The White Working Class Isn’t Economic, It’s Cultural
What Trump Talks About When He Talks About the Working Class
Stop Obsessing Over White Working-Class Voters
Donald Trump Won on White-Male Resentment—but Don’t Confuse That With the Working Class
What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class
White women voted for Trump in 2016 because they still believe white men are their saviors

You have zero self awareness .

That is beyond shite . People like you are the reason that fuckwit won . You lot are a fucking cancer .

 

[CRI]

I am still waiting for you to tell me what makes me 'white working class' rather than a working class person who is white.

CRI

I didn't realise you'd asked before. Here goes.

In a racist society, white people enjoy more privilege. Thus, white, working class folks tend to enjoy more social, economic and political privilege and power than non-white working class folks. Can we agree on this?

By turning it around and citing class identity before whiteness, it suggests that the less advantaged part of your identity (i.e. being working class, compared to middle or upper class) is more important than the more privileged part of your identity - the whiteness. Whiteness then comes across as almost incidental, if not irrelevant.

It can also be used to dismiss calls from working class people of colour to shift movements on the left from centering so much on the white working class experience, with the, "but, we're all oppressed by the class system, we should focus on what unites us, not what divides us."

I've seen some try to use it as a pass to insist they aren't racist and they don't benefit from the privilege that comes from white supremacy, because working class white people have no say in creating or sustaining the class system from which racism emanates.

Before someone blows a gasket, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular from this message board and if it helps, of course "not all white working class people . . . "

Some weeks ago, I posted several articles from African Americans and other people of colour explaining why relatively few non-white folks backed Bernie Saunders, which seemed to baffle white Sanders supporters. These explained the situ a lot better than I have, I'm sure.

 

[CRI]

Why is this a surprise? She was openly advocating a policy which would have increased the likelyhood of a shooting war between the US and Russia, after all.

Can you expand on this? I'm asking genuinely. Do you mean sanctions against Russia for overt support to Assad and targeting civilians in Syria? Do you mean continuing support for NATO? Do you mean opposition to the annexation of Crimea? Thanks.

 

[agricola]

If that's the case, wouldn't it be in the Russians' best interests to hack the election in an attempt to prevent the election of a candidate who might threaten Russia's very existence?

It might have been, though them celebrating the fact that Trump won doesn't mean that they did. Also I am a bit amazed that anyone could read Clapper describe Russian antics during the election as:

"This was a multifaceted campaign," he said. "The hacking was only one part of it. It also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news."

.. and not think he is talking absolute nonsense.

 

[CRI]

You googled and fucked up.

Uh nope. I gave examples to show differing perspectives Americans have about themselves, among other things. Perhaps not surprising, as this is a UK based message board, I do see contributions here from people who think they understand things about America and/or assume they can just parachute their understanding of class, race, belief, etc. into an American context. Did you read the one by Joan Williams - including the bit about how "working class" means something different to most Americans from what it means in the UK?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It might have been, though them celebrating the fact that Trump won doesn't mean that they did.

That's true. I was commenting on your remark:

She was openly advocating a policy which would have increased the likelyhood of a shooting war between the US and Russia, after all.

That description paints Clinton as an existential threat to Russia. In the circumstances, it would arguably be in their best interests to try and defeat Clinton early, via hacking, rather than have to face her at the command of the US military, further down the road.

Hacking the election in order to prevent a large shooting war, or a nuclear war, would seem to be eminently sensible.

Unless you're suggesting that the Russians didn't have the technological know-how to pull it off?

 

[agricola]

Can you expand on this? I'm asking genuinely. Do you mean sanctions against Russia for overt support to Assad and targeting civilians in Syria? Do you mean continuing support for NATO? Do you mean opposition to the annexation of Crimea? Thanks.

It was her call for a no-fly zone over Syria. There is a bit more of it here, in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs gets asked about what it would take to control the skies above Syria (main bit from 3:16 and onwards):

 

[CRI]

Appeasement?

Just to clarify, do you mean that Clinton would have been more likely to stand against Russian aggression, human rights violations, etc., while Trump appears to be going for appeasement by not challenging but praising Putin's leadership, and the latter is the better option?

 

[agricola]

Unless you're suggesting that the Russians didn't have the technological know-how to pull it off?

No, but the substantive offence that they have been accused of (the DNC / Podesta hack) is something that is within the capability of teenagers as well as states.

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't realise you'd asked before. Here goes.

In a racist society, white people enjoy more privilege. Thus, white, working class folks tend to enjoy more social, economic and political privilege and power than non-white working class folks. Can we agree on this?

while that might have some resonance in some societies, there are other societies in which that statement is untrue. So no, I can't sign up to that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, but the substantive offence that they have been accused of (the DNC / Podesta hack) is something that is within the capability of teenagers as well as states.

Yes it is.

But in terms of motivation, teenagers might do it for shits and giggles; but accepting the premise that Clinton was an anti-Russian hawk who would probably lead the world into a US/Russian war ..... well then, could there be a better or more urgent motivation for hacking, than the prevention of such a war?

If the Russians had determined that Clinton was such a serious threat to world peace, and they had the ability to hack the election, then it might be argued that they would be remiss not to do the hacking.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, but the substantive offence that they have been accused of (the DNC / Podesta hack) is something that is within the capability of teenagers as well as states.

Or teenagers employed by states

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes it is.

But in terms of motivation, teenagers might do it for shits and giggles; but accepting the premise that Clinton was an anti-Russian hawk who would probably lead the world into a US/Russian war ..... well then, could there be a better or more urgent motivation for hacking, than the prevention of such a war?

If the Russians had determined that Clinton was such a serious threat to world peace, and they had the ability to hack the election, then it might be argued that they would be remiss not to do the hacking.

Yeh. But if the premise is that a Trump administration would diminish the US and nato and thus advance Russian interests?

 

[CRI]

Well regardless of my view of her her failure to motivate even her registered base against an absolutely shocking alternative suggests something was wrong with the choice. Misogyny has been suggested but can't believe that explains the stay-at-homes among the young etc.

She did though win the popular vote, but a considerable margin, if not enough delegates for the electoral college. It seems to be becoming received wisdom that Trump cleaned up at the polls, when that's not true. IMO, I think there were a whole range of factors that led to the result - voter suppression, votes for third party candidates (see Bush-Gore and the Ralph Nader effect in 2000), mainstream media licking his ass and kicking hers (despite his constant projection that they were on her side), and y'know maybe, just some outside influence from other countries through selective release of information damaging to her campaign.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The premise is that Clinton was an anti-Russian hawk who would probably lead the world into a US/Russia war.

One of the purposes of espionage, so far as I know, is the identification of and neutralization of threats to a state's interests, integrity, or security.

What more urgent and justifiable application of espionage, than the prevention of a possible nuclear war?

 

[agricola]

Yes it is.

But in terms of motivation, teenagers might do it for shits and giggles; but accepting the premise that Clinton was an anti-Russian hawk who would probably lead the world into a US/Russian war ..... well then, could there be a better or more urgent motivation for hacking, than the prevention of such a war?

If the Russians had determined that Clinton was such a serious threat to world peace, and they had the ability to hack the election, then it might be argued that they would be remiss not to do the hacking.

Indeed, though if someone had done it already then the need for them to do it is a lot less.

I just think it is a bit mad that this is being spun as a fiendish plot by that rascally mastermind Putin, when it is at least as likely that it is the case that the DNC were just as blindingly incompetent at online security as they proved to be at everything else.

 

[Pickman's model]

The premise is that Clinton was an anti-Russian hawk who would probably lead the world into a US/Russia war.

One of the purposes of espionage, so far as I know, is the identification of and neutralization of threats to a state's interests, integrity, or security.

What more urgent and justifiable application of espionage, than the prevention of a possible nuclear war?

And obviously Trump a sane statesman-like figure who would never increase tension on the world stage or threaten the use of nuclear weapons

 

[CRI]

It was her call for a no-fly zone over Syria. There is a bit more of it here, in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs gets asked about what it would take to control the skies above Syria (main bit from 3:16 and onwards):

But surely not the first or the worst time a US president, or candidate has threatened or actually embarked on action that was against the wishes/interests of Russia / USSR. My life until my mid 20's was punctuated with plenty of face offs between the US and USSR, and there have been proxy conflicts more recently.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I just think it is a bit mad that this is being spun as a fiendish plot by that rascally mastermind Putin, when it is at least as likely that it is the case that the DNC were just as blindingly incompetent at online security as they proved to be at everything else.

It could be incompetence, it could be teenagers, it could be all sorts of things.

I'm just not clear on the absolute, flat denial by many people that there is any possibility that Russia could be involved.

As I've said a couple of times now, the neutralization of the threat of a nuclear war seems an eminently justifiable use of espionage.

That being the case, imo it brings it within the realm of possibility, that Russia was involved.

Frankly, if a country thought it could prevent a nuclear war via espionage, why would it not do so?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And obviously Trump a sane statesman-like figure who would never increase tension on the world stage or threaten the use of nuclear weapons

According to that Telegraph article, the Russians have been celebrating the Trump win as a 'geopolitical victory'.

So apparently, they see some advantage to a Trump presidency, over a Clinton presidency.

 

[Pickman's model]

According to that Telegraph article, the Russians have been celebrating the Trump win as a 'geopolitical victory'.

So apparently, they see some advantage to a Trump presidency, over a Clinton presidency.

Yes, that American influence will decline under dt, who is already doing his bit for nuclear proliferation

 

[CRI]

No, but the substantive offence that they have been accused of (the DNC / Podesta hack) is something that is within the capability of teenagers as well as states.

I didn't bookmark, so probably can't find it again, but I saw a long thread on Twitter from someone who seemed to have understanding of the technical and intelligence side who said while in theory, a teenager "could" have done the hacking, who was targeted and how they did it, and what was obtained strongly suggested it was unlikely a hypothetical teenager did it.

Seems to be a hella denial that Russia could be involved, and resistance to investigating to find out. Is doing whatever it takes not to upset the Russian leadership the only option that can ever be considered then?

 

[CRI]

while that might have some resonance in some societies, there are other societies in which that statement is untrue. So no, I can't sign up to that.

Okay, we agree to disagree.

 

[agricola]

But surely not the first or the worst time a US president, or candidate has threatened or actually embarked on action that was against the wishes/interests of Russia / USSR. My life until my mid 20's was punctuated with plenty of face offs between the US and USSR, and there have been proxy conflicts more recently.

That exchange was some way beyond "action against the wishes of Russia", though. Dunford gave an honest answer; to really control the airspace above Syria and stop the barrel bombings they would have to go to war with Russia and Syria - unless the Russians and Syrians dismantled all their air defences in the region.

 

[CRI]

And obviously Trump a sane statesman-like figure who would never increase tension on the world stage or threaten the use of nuclear weapons

He seems to have had something of an obsession about nukes going back to the 80's. Kinda weird.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I suppose another possibility is that the Russians didn't hack the election, because they didn't consider Clinton to be the existential threat to world peace that a number of U75 posters did/do.