Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Saying that Greenwald and Maté don't argue against the Mueller investigation is more gaslighting. 

 I think you said -- excuse me, @nohero said -- that Greenwald and Mate were pushing their "Stop Mueller mantra."
If you can find that mantra, let us know.

 They never said a thing about stopping Mueller.  I don't think nohero/South_Mountaineer listened to the video since that is his stock answer for anything critical of Russiagate. 

I was commenting on the tweets involving Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald, which paulsurovell posted.  There's also a different post by him, with a link to an article with an interview by Aaron Maté and a professor named Gerald Horne - they're talking about Trump and immigration, not Trump and Russia.  I read the conversation, but didn't watch the video since I assumed it was the same discussion.

Anyway, they're completely separate.  You're getting confused between the two.  There's a lot of that going around.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Looking forward to nanpaul explaining away the Bannon/Stone emails.

I read it in the NY Times:


“A load every week going forward,” Mr. Stone replied, echoing Mr. Assange’s public vow to publish documents on a weekly basis until the Nov. 8 election.
Note the bold.

 Note the part you ignore.
“Assange — what’s he got?” Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Stone on Oct. 3. “Hope it’s good.”
“It is,” Mr. Stone replied.
A half-hour later, Mr. Boyle emailed Mr. Bannon, urging him to call Mr. Stone. Mr. Bannon replied, “I’ve got important stuff to worry about.”

Mr. Boyle continued to press: “Clearly he knows what Assange has.”

 The part I mentioned is fact. The part you mentioned is two guys speculating.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
It's a substitute for trying to make a point.
If those are the passages Mr. Surovell highlights, I have to say those are the least substantive analyses I've seen of Trump's "birthright citizenship" proposal.  They are entirely in keeping with the philosophy that enabled Trump, however.

 You've got it backwards, as usual. Horne shows why the establishment narrative -- which truly enabled -- and actually created Trump (in addition to the DNC's promotion of Trump through the "Pied Piper" strategy) has brought us to this point.

I don't want to change your meaning by trying to interpret what you mean in order to respond.
So, if you want to explain, I'd be happy to respond.  If you don't, then I can't respond to your "obfuscation" (to use the word of the day).
A genuine substantive response wouldn't be blaming the Democrats from 2016, but instead would be looking at voters in 2018 and Trump's obvious strategy.  Trump is running hard on immigration issues (going so far as to blatantly distort and outright lie) to stir up the voters he views as his "base".  It doesn't matter what is legal with respect to the military or citizenship, or even how far the "migrant caravan" is from the US border.  All that matters is that he wants to push as many racist buttons as possible.  
A cartoon discussed on another thread explains this better than that whole interview:

The cartoon is good, but not relevant to what Horne said

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 Actually it was intended for the readership because your first "quote" was not a quote but a distortion of what was actually said.

The readership can read. In fact, I’m this close to reading everyone my poetry.

 The comment was a response to Ridski's suggestion that the readership need not read.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
A genuine substantive response wouldn't be blaming the Democrats from 2016, but instead would be looking at voters in 2018 and Trump's obvious strategy.  Trump is running hard on immigration issues (going so far as to blatantly distort and outright lie) to stir up the voters he views as his "base".  It doesn't matter what is legal with respect to the military or citizenship, or even how far the "migrant caravan" is from the US border.  All that matters is that he wants to push as many racist buttons as possible.  
A cartoon discussed on another thread explains this better than that whole interview:

The cartoon is good, but not relevant to what Horne said

 The cartoon is reproduced below.  It is precisely relevant to how you described what Horne said, when you introduced it.

paulsurovell said:

Since we're on the subject of "substance" and since Aaron Mate's work has been questioned, his interview with historian Gerald Horne shows how journalism can address Trump's immigration/racial demagoguery in a substantive way that you won't find in the mainstream media

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I'm not going to enter into a debate on whether those two are for or against the Mueller investigation.  You've settled that debate with other statements you've supported, and with your own posts.  They're against. 

 So you are retracting your statement that they push a "Stop Mueller mantra?"

nohero said:

The question "were the theme's promoters sincere" is obviously someone those two would ask.  But asking if they were "sincere", or as you go on to ask, "truthful", is not at all "obvious" from their characterization of campaign themes.
They're inventing reasons to insult people, and it's not "obfuscation" to point that out.  Since they're on the Twitter, maybe Trump will see the exchange and it will make him smile.

 Another variant of your proclivity to obfuscate -- rather than look at the merits of what Mate and Greenwald are saying, you turn it into "insulting people" and a subtle version of your OCD labeling of dissenting views as "pro-Trump."

I was responding to this -

paulsurovell said:Mate asks the obvious -- were the theme's promoters sincere? Which is a polite way of saying -- were the theme's promoters truthful? 

Insinuating that about the lawmakers, officials, and ordinary voters is part of opposing the investigation.  Period, full stop.
And please don't try the "he was just asking questions" excuse, which is bull caca.

 Mate and Greenwald have written and spoken extensively about the malpractice of media, elected officials and former and anonymous members of the intelligence community in promoting a false narrative of a Russian government attack on US democracy and collusion with the Trump campaign in the 2016 election. Chuck Todd's recent Russia hysteria-mongering follows previous comparisons of alleged Russian "meddling" with "Pearl Harbor" and "Kristalnacht" and other existential threats, in addition to calls of "Treason."

The Democratic Party's leadership (which sued Russia and the Trump campaign for allegedly stealing the 2016 election) has been radio silent on all of this in the mid-term campaign, which suggests that their hysteria-monger was insincere/untruthful.

That's what Mate and Greenwald were talking about, not Mueller.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
A genuine substantive response wouldn't be blaming the Democrats from 2016, but instead would be looking at voters in 2018 and Trump's obvious strategy.  Trump is running hard on immigration issues (going so far as to blatantly distort and outright lie) to stir up the voters he views as his "base".  It doesn't matter what is legal with respect to the military or citizenship, or even how far the "migrant caravan" is from the US border.  All that matters is that he wants to push as many racist buttons as possible.  
A cartoon discussed on another thread explains this better than that whole interview:

The cartoon is good, but not relevant to what Horne said

 The cartoon is reproduced below.  It is precisely relevant to how you described what Horne said, when you introduced it.

paulsurovell said:Since we're on the subject of "substance" and since Aaron Mate's work has been questioned, his interview with historian Gerald Horne shows how journalism can address Trump's immigration/racial demagoguery in a substantive way that you won't find in the mainstream media

 

 Yes, the cartoon is an example of a substantive portrayal of Trump's demagoguery.  But it doesn't address the historical parallels of what Trump is doing as described by Horne.  Those parallels are outside the paradigm allowed in the MSM, such as US antimiscegenation laws (which he points out were used by the Nazis), terrorism by the Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism and the Red Scare that was used against labor unions, which Horne notes:

"led to a devastation of political education which has been particularly harmful to the working class. Particularly, I would say, those working-class voters who were seduced and [traduced] into voting for Mr. Trump in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. And it created an overall atmosphere of backwardness whereby the class question was downgraded, which inevitably lead like a seesaw to the rising of ultra right-wing white nationalism, which you just saw manifested in Pittsburgh, not least."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
A genuine substantive response wouldn't be blaming the Democrats from 2016, but instead would be looking at voters in 2018 and Trump's obvious strategy.  Trump is running hard on immigration issues (going so far as to blatantly distort and outright lie) to stir up the voters he views as his "base".  It doesn't matter what is legal with respect to the military or citizenship, or even how far the "migrant caravan" is from the US border.  All that matters is that he wants to push as many racist buttons as possible.  
A cartoon discussed on another thread explains this better than that whole interview:

The cartoon is good, but not relevant to what Horne said

 The cartoon is reproduced below.  It is precisely relevant to how you described what Horne said, when you introduced it.

paulsurovell said:Since we're on the subject of "substance" and since Aaron Mate's work has been questioned, his interview with historian Gerald Horne shows how journalism can address Trump's immigration/racial demagoguery in a substantive way that you won't find in the mainstream media

 

 Bullseye!

paulsurovell said:

That's what Mate and Greenwald were talking about, not Mueller.

 Now I see the problem.  I read them within the context of the themes and claims in their work.

You're reading them in isolation; if they don't say "Mueller", then as far as you're concerned their conversation has nothing to do with Mueller.

I've already addressed that.

paulsurovell said:

Yes, the cartoon is an example of a substantive portrayal of Trump's demagoguery.  But it doesn't address the historical parallels of what Trump is doing as described by Horne.  Those parallels are outside the paradigm allowed in the MSM, such as US antimiscegenation laws (which he points out were used by the Nazis), terrorism by the Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism and the Red Scare that was used against labor unions, which Horne notes:

"led to a devastation of political education which has been particularly harmful to the working class. Particularly, I would say, those working-class voters who were seduced and [traduced] into voting for Mr. Trump in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. And it created an overall atmosphere of backwardness whereby the class question was downgraded, which inevitably lead like a seesaw to the rising of ultra right-wing white nationalism, which you just saw manifested in Pittsburgh, not least."

You won't find that kind of substance in the MSM.

Two thoughts:

1. Not going to bother with the silly "You won't find that kind of substance …" comment.  Just this morning, in the middle of the opinion page of my NY Times (for those of you who still subscribe to a paper made out of paper) there's a very good column relating the historical perspective to Trump's current offensive ploy.

2.  You are so close to finally getting the point, with that last quote you pulled from the interview of Dr. Horne.  You didn't point to that the first time you quoted him, which is why I responded the way I did.  

More important, you're missing the key piece which I would agree with (and which is similar to what I wrote about "a genuine substantive response", which sits right above the text you just quoted:

AARON MATE: So in terms of these threats to all these basic rights, now, there is a growing fear that this is not just being done to target undocumented people, but this is also part of a process that wants to gin up fear in order to justify cracking down on dissent on progressives at home, working people, to crush strikes. And I’m wondering, in this context, to what extent is the historical crackdown on working people, the crushing of unions- a huge theme especially in the 20th century- how has that contributed to what we’re seeing today, and actually to the appeal and the power of white supremacy across the country?
GERALD HORNE: Well, I couldn’t have asked a better question myself. 

That's the key point.  Trump is just trying to push the same buttons he pushed in 2016.  He's doing it more blatantly, more vigorously, and more disgustingly than he did then.  Maybe that's why it's dawning on more of the "there's no difference" crowd that they really should pick a side this time.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Yes, the cartoon is an example of a substantive portrayal of Trump's demagoguery.  But it doesn't address the historical parallels of what Trump is doing as described by Horne.  Those parallels are outside the paradigm allowed in the MSM, such as US antimiscegenation laws (which he points out were used by the Nazis), terrorism by the Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism and the Red Scare that was used against labor unions, which Horne notes:

"led to a devastation of political education which has been particularly harmful to the working class. Particularly, I would say, those working-class voters who were seduced and [traduced] into voting for Mr. Trump in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. And it created an overall atmosphere of backwardness whereby the class question was downgraded, which inevitably lead like a seesaw to the rising of ultra right-wing white nationalism, which you just saw manifested in Pittsburgh, not least."

You won't find that kind of substance in the MSM.

Two thoughts:
1. Not going to bother with the silly "You won't find that kind of substance …" comment.  Just this morning, in the middle of the opinion page of my NY Times (for those of you who still subscribe to a paper made out of paper) there's a very good column relating the historical perspective to Trump's current offensive ploy.
2.  You are so close to finally getting the point, with that last quote you pulled from the interview of Dr. Horne.  You didn't point to that the first time you quoted him, which is why I responded the way I did.  
More important, you're missing the key piece which I would agree with (and which is similar to what I wrote about "a genuine substantive response", which sits right above the text you just quoted:

AARON MATE: So in terms of these threats to all these basic rights, now, there is a growing fear that this is not just being done to target undocumented people, but this is also part of a process that wants to gin up fear in order to justify cracking down on dissent on progressives at home, working people, to crush strikes. And I’m wondering, in this context, to what extent is the historical crackdown on working people, the crushing of unions- a huge theme especially in the 20th century- how has that contributed to what we’re seeing today, and actually to the appeal and the power of white supremacy across the country?
GERALD HORNE: Well, I couldn’t have asked a better question myself. 

That's the key point.  Trump is just trying to push the same buttons he pushed in 2016.  He's doing it more blatantly, more vigorously, and more disgustingly than he did then.  Maybe that's why it's dawning on more of the "there's no difference" crowd that they really should pick a side this time.

 Actually, I am less convinced that there is a side to pick this time than last.  The Democrats learned nothing from their stunning defeat and have doubled down on attacks on progressives and will probably just sell the nomination to Joe Biden (who is touted as popular in polls that skew for Biden loving demographics) or similar in secret instead of Hillary.  They really would rather lose than let someone like Bernie win. It is difficult to think that voting for them will improve much long-term, since after another four years of neoliberal policies we will probably get someone like that guy in Brazil (the fascist that the Wall Street Journal endorsed). 

And yet you offer no real alternatives.  just lots of whining about the Democrats.   That's a great strategy.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:That's what Mate and Greenwald were talking about, not Mueller.

 Now I see the problem.  I read them within the context of the themes and claims in their work.
You're reading them in isolation; if they don't say "Mueller", then as far as you're concerned their conversation has nothing to do with Mueller.
I've already addressed that.

I didn't say "the conversation has nothing to do with Mueller."  But what Mate and Greenwald were discussing with regard to the disappearance of Russiagate in the midterm elections was not about Mueller, but the screeching halt of the Democratic leadership's railing about "Treason" and the "greatest threat to our democracy since Pearl Harbor."

You haven't addressed that, you've tried to obfuscate it.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:That's what Mate and Greenwald were talking about, not Mueller.

 Now I see the problem.  I read them within the context of the themes and claims in their work.
You're reading them in isolation; if they don't say "Mueller", then as far as you're concerned their conversation has nothing to do with Mueller.
I've already addressed that.

I didn't say "the conversation has nothing to do with Mueller."  

When you make up your mind, let us know.

Dr. Horne actually has a response to the argument "We lost because we picked Hillary instead of Bernie".  His response is, essentially, "Dear white progressives: It's not about you."  Both in the interview originally posted by Mr. Surovell, and in other interviews, he identifies the pandering to racist ideas and suppression of the African-American vote as the problems to be addressed.

In the interview, a complete thought (that was only excerpted above) makes this clear:

That also led to a devastation of political education which has been particularly harmful to the working class. Particularly, I would say, those working-class voters who were seduced and [traduced] into voting for Mr. Trump in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. And it created an overall atmosphere of backwardness whereby the class question was downgraded, which inevitably lead like a seesaw to the rising of ultra right-wing white nationalism, which you just saw manifested in Pittsburgh, not least.

So whatever arguments some make about Secretary Clinton not looking "progressive" enough to sway the voters who went for Trump (and I think she was, but that's not my point), that's not where the electoral battle was won by Trump.  There was a large portion of the electorate who could be "seduced and [traduced]" using racist appeals, such that "the class question was downgraded".  In my humble opinion, Secretary Clinton was trying to fight back on that front, but she took a lot of fire from her own left flank for specifically pushing back on Trump's racist appeals.

That's in the interview which was recommended to us by Mr. Surovell.  I was curious about Dr. Horne's other thoughts on the issue.

Suppression of the African-American vote was considered a significant factor by Dr. Horne at the conclusion of the 2016 election.

KIM BROWN: So, in your opinion has there ever been a presidential election where the popular vote, perhaps in a given State was fraught with voter suppression or voter disenfranchisement that it affected how a state’s electoral votes were awarded?

GERALD HORNE: Well, you could even say that for 2016. I mean, it’s well known that in black communities in particular, often times there are fewer voting machines, the voting machines that are there often times do not work. That leads to longer lines, which causes voters to turn around and go home. We all know that in the black community, in particular, nine out of ten times, voters tend to vote against the right. That has affected the outcome, I would dare say, in North Carolina, from where I’m speaking today. And certainly, it probably affected the outcome in Wisconsin, if you look at how the black vote in Milwaukee turned out in November, 2016. So, yes, I think it’s fair to say that the electoral outcome has been impacted by very shady machinations, but that seems to be par for the course for the United States of America in 2016.

Again, it's not necessarily lack of appeal to progressives, but instead suppression of the black vote which Dr. Horne sees as the significant factor.  

Dr. Horne also has another diagnosis for why the 2016 election came out the way it did.  

I think the Republicans did an effective job of blocking liberal and progressive initiatives in Congress which led many voters to think that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. And that created an opening for Donald Trump and allowed him to win. But again we are still stuck with this antiquated, archaic Constitution, which says you can come in second place with the popular vote and still win!

"Led many voters to think that there's no difference".  I've been arguing that was a significant problem with the 2016 election, but I'm not someone anybody listens to.  And we all know who else helped push the "no difference" theme in 2016.

So, I thank Mr. Surovell for pointing us to Dr. Horne and his analyses of American politics. 

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:That's what Mate and Greenwald were talking about, not Mueller.

 Now I see the problem.  I read them within the context of the themes and claims in their work.
You're reading them in isolation; if they don't say "Mueller", then as far as you're concerned their conversation has nothing to do with Mueller.
I've already addressed that.

I didn't say "the conversation has nothing to do with Mueller."  

When you make up your mind, let us know.

Mueller's investigation is part of Russiagate, but that doesn't mean that every conversation about Russiagate is about Mueller's investigation. The conversation about why the Democrats suddenly ended their hysteria-mongering over Russiagate when the election campaign started is one of those conversations that don't involve Mueller.

For example, the hysteria-mongering involved Democratic accusations that the alleged Russian attack was a "Pearl Harbor," that Trump is "Putin's puppet," and that Trump's relationship with Putin is "treasonous."  Those talking points are about Russiagate --  of which Mueller is a part -- but they are not about Mueller because he has never expressed or suggested them.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Yes, the cartoon is an example of a substantive portrayal of Trump's demagoguery.  But it doesn't address the historical parallels of what Trump is doing as described by Horne.  Those parallels are outside the paradigm allowed in the MSM, such as US antimiscegenation laws (which he points out were used by the Nazis), terrorism by the Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism and the Red Scare that was used against labor unions, which Horne notes:

"led to a devastation of political education which has been particularly harmful to the working class. Particularly, I would say, those working-class voters who were seduced and [traduced] into voting for Mr. Trump in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. And it created an overall atmosphere of backwardness whereby the class question was downgraded, which inevitably lead like a seesaw to the rising of ultra right-wing white nationalism, which you just saw manifested in Pittsburgh, not least."

You won't find that kind of substance in the MSM.

Two thoughts:
1. Not going to bother with the silly "You won't find that kind of substance …" comment.  Just this morning, in the middle of the opinion page of my NY Times (for those of you who still subscribe to a paper made out of paper) there's a very good column relating the historical perspective to Trump's current offensive ploy.
2.  You are so close to finally getting the point, with that last quote you pulled from the interview of Dr. Horne.  You didn't point to that the first time you quoted him, which is why I responded the way I did.  
More important, you're missing the key piece which I would agree with (and which is similar to what I wrote about "a genuine substantive response", which sits right above the text you just quoted:

AARON MATE: So in terms of these threats to all these basic rights, now, there is a growing fear that this is not just being done to target undocumented people, but this is also part of a process that wants to gin up fear in order to justify cracking down on dissent on progressives at home, working people, to crush strikes. And I’m wondering, in this context, to what extent is the historical crackdown on working people, the crushing of unions- a huge theme especially in the 20th century- how has that contributed to what we’re seeing today, and actually to the appeal and the power of white supremacy across the country?
GERALD HORNE: Well, I couldn’t have asked a better question myself. 

That's the key point.  Trump is just trying to push the same buttons he pushed in 2016.  He's doing it more blatantly, more vigorously, and more disgustingly than he did then.  Maybe that's why it's dawning on more of the "there's no difference" crowd that they really should pick a side this time.

Glad to see you have retracted your comment that started this exchange (see below). You should have ignored Ridski's advice and read the article.

paulsurovell said:

Glad to see you have retracted your comment that started this exchange (see below). You should have ignored Ridski's advice and read the article.

I didn't retract anything.  But not going to repeat everything you've ignored in my earlier posts. 

He can't help doing that.  It's in his job description. 

sbenois said:
He can't help doing that.  It's in his job description. 

The pay's not great.

nohero said:
Dr. Horne actually has a response to the argument "We lost because we picked Hillary instead of Bernie".  His response is, essentially, "Dear white progressives: It's not about you."  Both in the interview originally posted by Mr. Surovell, and in other interviews, he identifies the pandering to racist ideas and suppression of the African-American vote as the problems to be addressed.
In the interview, a complete thought (that was only excerpted above) makes this clear:

That also led to a devastation of political education which has been particularly harmful to the working class. Particularly, I would say, those working-class voters who were seduced and [traduced] into voting for Mr. Trump in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. And it created an overall atmosphere of backwardness whereby the class question was downgraded, which inevitably lead like a seesaw to the rising of ultra right-wing white nationalism, which you just saw manifested in Pittsburgh, not least.

So whatever arguments some make about Secretary Clinton not looking "progressive" enough to sway the voters who went for Trump (and I think she was, but that's not my point), that's not where the electoral battle was won by Trump.  There was a large portion of the electorate who could be "seduced and [traduced]" using racist appeals, such that "the class question was downgraded".  In my humble opinion, Secretary Clinton was trying to fight back on that front, but she took a lot of fire from her own left flank for specifically pushing back on Trump's racist appeals.
That's in the interview which was recommended to us by Mr. Surovell.  I was curious about Dr. Horne's other thoughts on the issue.
Suppression of the African-American vote was considered a significant factor by Dr. Horne at the conclusion of the 2016 election.

KIM BROWN: So, in your opinion has there ever been a presidential election where the popular vote, perhaps in a given State was fraught with voter suppression or voter disenfranchisement that it affected how a state’s electoral votes were awarded?

GERALD HORNE: Well, you could even say that for 2016. I mean, it’s well known that in black communities in particular, often times there are fewer voting machines, the voting machines that are there often times do not work. That leads to longer lines, which causes voters to turn around and go home. We all know that in the black community, in particular, nine out of ten times, voters tend to vote against the right. That has affected the outcome, I would dare say, in North Carolina, from where I’m speaking today. And certainly, it probably affected the outcome in Wisconsin, if you look at how the black vote in Milwaukee turned out in November, 2016. So, yes, I think it’s fair to say that the electoral outcome has been impacted by very shady machinations, but that seems to be par for the course for the United States of America in 2016.

Again, it's not necessarily lack of appeal to progressives, but instead suppression of the black vote which Dr. Horne sees as the significant factor.  
Dr. Horne also has another diagnosis for why the 2016 election came out the way it did.  

I think the Republicans did an effective job of blocking liberal and progressive initiatives in Congress which led many voters to think that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. And that created an opening for Donald Trump and allowed him to win. But again we are still stuck with this antiquated, archaic Constitution, which says you can come in second place with the popular vote and still win!

"Led many voters to think that there's no difference".  I've been arguing that was a significant problem with the 2016 election, but I'm not someone anybody listens to.  And we all know who else helped push the "no difference" theme in 2016.
So, I thank Mr. Surovell for pointing us to Dr. Horne and his analyses of American politics. 
 

Glad to see you appreciate Gerald Horne's perspectives. What you've posted expresses my views, and with regard to this thread, note that Gerald Horne does not mention Russia as a factor in the 2016 election.

I've previously made the point that the Democrats' focus on Russiagate has diverted attention from the real threat to US democracy -- suppression of the votes of African Americans and other minorities.

For example, I posted the following piece by Rutgers prof. Jackson Lears, almost a year ago:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking

We can gauge the corrosive impact of the Democrats’ fixation on Russia by asking what they aren’t talking about when they talk about Russian hacking. For a start, they aren’t talking about interference of other sorts in the election, such as the Republican Party’s many means of disenfranchising minority voters. Nor are they talking about the trillion dollar defence budget that pre-empts the possibility of single-payer healthcare and other urgently needed social programmes; nor about the modernisation of the American nuclear arsenal which Obama began and Trump plans to accelerate, and which raises the risk of the ultimate environmental calamity, nuclear war – a threat made more serious than it has been in decades by America’s combative stance towards Russia. The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington’s ways than their president will ever be.

nohero said:

sbenois said:
He can't help doing that.  It's in his job description. 

The pay's not great.
 

@nohero the McCarthyite.

For the record, here is @nohero's latest eruption of McCarthyism, noted above, in context:

paulsurovell said:
For the record, here is @nohero's latest eruption of McCarthyism, noted above, in context:

 Thanks for the context.  People can see that these were sarcastic reactions to your response which was deliberately disrespectful.

paulsurovell said:
Glad to see you appreciate Gerald Horne's perspectives. What you've posted expresses my views, and with regard to this thread, note that Gerald Horne does not mention Russia as a factor in the 2016 election.

I've previously made the point that the Democrats' focus on Russiagate has diverted attention from the real threat to US democracy -- suppression of the votes of African Americans and other minorities.

For example, I posted the following piece by Rutgers prof. Jackson Lears, almost a year ago:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking

 Your post doesn't pass the laugh test.

I appreciate Dr. Horne's actual perspectives, which you missed after two tries posting from that article.

Actually, he doesn't express your views at all.  It means nothing that he doesn't mention Russia.  He definitely disagrees with your views when he makes it clear, in the conversations I quoted, that the Republicans "led many voters to think that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.  And that created an opening for Donald Trump and allowed him to win."  I've been pointing out the problem with that for two years, and you've been disagreeing with me.

As for the Jackson Lears piece, that excerpt is part of a much longer one that you posted, for an entirely different point, last year.  And if you think that the Democrats haven't been paying attention to voter suppression, you haven't been paying attention.

paulsurovell said:

The part I mentioned is fact. The part you mentioned is two guys speculating.

Uh huh. I think you trust Roger Stone a bit too much.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
For the record, here is @nohero's latest eruption of McCarthyism, noted above, in context:

 Thanks for the context.  People can see that these were sarcastic reactions to your response which was deliberately disrespectful.

 So your stream of McCarthyite slurs over the last two years have been sarcastic?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Glad to see you appreciate Gerald Horne's perspectives. What you've posted expresses my views, and with regard to this thread, note that Gerald Horne does not mention Russia as a factor in the 2016 election.

I've previously made the point that the Democrats' focus on Russiagate has diverted attention from the real threat to US democracy -- suppression of the votes of African Americans and other minorities.

For example, I posted the following piece by Rutgers prof. Jackson Lears, almost a year ago:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking

 Your post doesn't pass the laugh test.
I appreciate Dr. Horne's actual perspectives, which you missed after two tries posting from that article.
Actually, he doesn't express your views at all.  It means nothing that he doesn't mention Russia.  He definitely disagrees with your views when he makes it clear, in the conversations I quoted, that the Republicans "led many voters to think that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.  And that created an opening for Donald Trump and allowed him to win."  I've been pointing out the problem with that for two years, and you've been disagreeing with me.
As for the Jackson Lears piece, that excerpt is part of a much longer one that you posted, for an entirely different point, last year.  And if you think that the Democrats haven't been paying attention to voter suppression, you haven't been paying attention.

This is fantasy. I have never said that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I've repeatedly said that the only good thing that Trump has ever said is that we should have better relations with Russia.  I've called for his impeachment. And you know that, so your post is a lie.

I cited Horne's interview as the kind of substance you won't find in the MSM, and to show the professionalism of Aaron Mate and I encouraged the readership to read it. Your reaction was to endorse Ridski's suggestion that the article wasn't worth reading.

As usual, you don't have the intellectual integrity to face facts and admit mistakes.

With regard to your appreciation of Dr.Horne's perspectives, I'm glad you do, because I'm going to go a bit deeper into Dr. Horne's perspectives later today.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

The part I mentioned is fact. The part you mentioned is two guys speculating.

Uh huh. I think you trust Roger Stone a bit too much.

No need to trust anyone in this matter. There are facts (like Assange announced publicly that he would be releasing stuff weekly) and there is speculation, like that of the two guys (Boyle and Bannon). Should we trust them?

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
For the record, here is @nohero's latest eruption of McCarthyism, noted above, in context:

 Thanks for the context.  People can see that these were sarcastic reactions to your response which was deliberately disrespectful.

 So your stream of McCarthyite slurs over the last two years have been sarcastic?

No, I wrote that my mention of Russian currency was sarcastic.  I didn't make any "McCarthyite" slurs.