From Counterpunch:
Smearing Sanders: From the NYT to MSDNC by Michael Sainato
On the morning of June 14, a tragic shooting during a congressional baseball practice injured four people including Republican House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA). The shooter was identified as James Hodgkinson, an Illinois native, and what became the most sensationalized and manipulated part of the story, he was a Bernie Sanders supporter. For political expediency, both Trump and Clinton supporters tried to drive this narrative that the motive for the shooting somehow stemmed from Bernie Sanders and progressivism. In a senseless, insane act of violence, people are trying to create their own rational narrative of an irrational action to further their own political ideology.
“I hope we have the maturity as a country to confront facts like this at the same time we’re thinking of the victims and keeping level heads,” MSNBC’s Joy Reid tweeted in response to a random Twitter use falsely claiming Bernie Sanders owes his political career to the NRA, who heavily funded his first congressional opponent. InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson tweeted, “here’s me on video a year ago warning that violent anti-Trump Bernie supporters were being radicalised by the media.”
<https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/875066519927091204>
The New York Times’ Yamiche Alcidor, who infamously asked Bernie Sanders if it was sexist for continuing to campaign toward the end of the Democratic primaries, wrote a hit piece linking the shooting to Bernie Sanders’ movement.”Not far from Mr. Sanders’ own message,” Alcidor wrote trying to weave a narrative that linked the shooter’s disdain for corporate influence in politics to Bernie Sanders`. The article claimed the attack was a test for Sanders’ movement, in a desperate attempt to punch left by shamelessly trying to tie the shooter’s motives as a symptom of being progressive.
“But long before the shooting on Wednesday, some of Mr. Sanders’s supporters had earned a belligerent reputation for their criticisms of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and others who believed they disagreed with their ideas,” Alcidor added, overtly ignoring the toxic attacks that came from Clinton supporters, as evident throughout this article and the previously cited tweeted from MSNBC’s Joy Reid. She also noted these “Bernie Bros” or “Bernie Bots,” attacked reporters as though only Sanders Supporters did this. At this point, Alcidor is referring to herself and failing to provide the context in which the mainstream media, including the New York Times itself, formally endorsed Clinton, employed solely pro-Clinton columnists, and skewed reporting to delegitimize Sanders’ campaign and perpetuate false narratives like the Bernie Bros myth. The article also tries to equate internet trolls with violence, while purporting the false myth that online trolling is a phenomenon that Sanders Supporters exclusively participate in.
Throughout the New York Times’ hit piece, none of Sanders or progressive politics are actually discussed. The inequalities and injustices progressive policies like single payer healthcare and free college tuition aren’t cited. Rather, Alcidor claims critical rhetoric toward institutions like Wall Street, that have helped create an environment of desperation and destitution in the United States, is inherently violent. To top off the hit piece, the only actual person named in the article is Trump supporter Harlan Hill.
—snip—
Even Fox News’ Sean Hannity lent the voice of reason citing “it’s just one guy,” and that Sanders and his supporters aren’t like that. But many Clinton loyalists, even the high profile ones, are so blinded by political disdain for progressives, they’re jumping at the opportunity to gain political points against them by exploiting a tragedy.
‘Nuf said.
Bernie Sanders…and Elizabeth Warren who is getting similar treatment from the usual neocentrist suspects in her own fields of endeavor…are the two most prominent figures in the Democratic Party that represent its “resistance” segment…resistance to the centrist Republicratic Party duopoly that has ruled this country since the assassination years. You can currently add Kamala Harris to that group, although she still has a long way to go to catch up to Sanders and Warren. She’s getting some heat, too.
We currently have a political system that is shaped something like this, only the middle is even more bloated and the edges are both shorter and shallower:
The media system is even more limited in terms of the outside points and much more bloated in the middle, and the media are the arbiters of what we laughingly call “public opinion.”
So it goes.
Why do I post this?
As a cautionary lesson. A cautionary tale. That bloated center is where most of the negative action occurs. There and at the very outside points of the edges, where the seriously disturbed nutcases live.
It is now time to move left. Out of the center.
Please!!!
Otherwise we will just blunder and blather our way into total failure on all levels.
Bumble through to the bitter end, which will not be that long in coming.
We’re 2/3rds of the way there already.
Bet on it.
AG
Over at C99%, Steven D, former BT frontpager, reports that he has been banned at DKos as part of a mass purge of Bernie supporters. How long you and I and about four or five others will last here is an open question. The likes of Marduk (I had hopes for him, sad), Beaumont, and the like will infest these pages, formerly a genteel community.
C’est la Guerre as the French say.
very interesting news. I hadn’t been to c99 yet today.
dkos is the home of the “what me change?” faction of the democratic party, convinced that if they do everything the same next election it will work differently.
Yas yas yas, no doubt Booman has your name on a short list to be banned. He just hasn’t gotten around to it yet.
Plenty of Bernie people still there: TomP most prominently.
Caucus99 became a Jill Stein site. A good number got chased because of that. I left C99 because of it.
Any pretense that DKOS is left of anything is long gone, of course.
And now I amend my comment. Delphine was banned – not a C99er and not a Jill Stein supporter.
Bad.
Not a Stein site, although many are Greens. Some wrote in Bernie, some actually voted for the lesser evil, who they perceived to be Hillary. Most have Demexited over the DNC corruption. Many still think the party can be reformed.
All viewpoints were welcome, although many, including me, argued for our choice, as a blog should be. There are no troll ratings. Fail to rec, or argue if you don’t agree. Censorship is very much frowned on.
Most are pacifist, anti-Israel, anti-Ukraine, militantly LGBT and socialist. I am none of those, but I still fit in because I recognize the evil of modern corporate serfdom.
Who said a blog has to be a propaganda center?
I’ll probably be giving c99 a closer look, especially if they truly are open minded to dissenting points of view, as they appear to be one of the few progblogs to allow/promote skepticism re the Russiagate narrative.
Sad, but not surprising, about the latest at Kos. I suspect Markos has some not-inconsiderable residual authoritarianism in him from his days in the ES military and his early years wanting to join the CIA. Generally I try to avoid places that overemphasize ratings and do silly things like awarding TU status to favored posters (i.e., those who toe the party line).
Heavy-handed censorship, even if by a non-state actor, is too illiberal and antidemocratic for my tastes. For other extreme examples of Dem/liberal overaggressiveness in suppressing free speech, see the recent examples from academia, most notably the insanity that occurred recently at Evergreen State College, Olympia WA, yet to be resolved.
i read c99 most days and wouldn’t recognize it from your description.
before the election it was the home of “Hillary would be worse”. And there may not be a banhammer, but saying good things about nearly any Democrat, or Bernie Sanders, will bring most of the regulars down on you hard.
I’ve had arguments, but I wouldn’t say anyone came down hard. Yes, Hillary is hated by everyone, including those who voted for her as the lesser evil.
I haven’t seen anyone defend Centrism, so you may be right there. But if you love the middle and the Corporate State, Dkos and BT are for you.
this site has more variety of opinion than c99 IMO.
BooMan is more of a party loyalist than I am but at least he acknowledges the Dems need to change, unlike the head-in-the-sand crew at dKos. The loyalists here may insult everyone to their left but they can’t get you banned.
Trying to figure out where my opinions fit makes me sympathetic with the Judean People’s Front; I understand why left groups tend to split so easily. On economics
there are plenty of people I agree with, but then they start talking foreign policy and send me running.
As it unfolded I thought it odd that reports kept saying “over 50 shots fired”. That is a very specific number immediately bringing to mind a Thompson or CAR-15 magazine. Usually news reports are all over the map, “three shots – eight shots- five shots”. Did someone count to fifty? Wouldn’t a more likely comment from an observer, let alone a target, be “dozens of shots fired”? Who was counting and lost track after fifty?
Shooter had a “high-powered rifle” later identified as an AR-15. “high powered”? Like a .300 Weatherby Magnum? No. What is “high-powered”? Is a WWII Garand “high powered”? Or just an ordinary rifle? Is anything more that a .22 rimfire, “high-powered”? OK, chalk it up to press ignorance of firearms.
I am appalled by the claim that a man with a violent criminal record could get a legal FOID card in Illinois, one of the most restrictive states. AFAIK an AR-15 is illegal in Illinois under the assault weapon ban. It seems like gun laws are pretty useless, not even considering the dozens of nightly shootings in Chicago.
Also seems strange that a man with a fast-shooting large magazine rifle was brought down by a handgun after he fired “over 50 times”. Capitol Police must have Dirty Harry Callahan on the force.
Shooter was shot dead. Convenient.
Final thought – Why aren’t Republicans celebrating the effective use of “second amendment solutions” to a political problem.
The madman with a gun was killed by police. That’s typical, not “convenient”.
GOP hacks were in fact making ridiculous comments about how if the congressmen’s staffers had all been armed, the madman would have been killed sooner.
But please explain why you are insinuating a conspiracy.
If those idiots had been armed, that situation would have been a complete clusterfuck. Thankfully, the cops did their job. The shooter had no business being near any firearms given his violent history. Only ones I’ve noticed trying to tar Sanders supporters or “the left” with his actions have been GOP politicians and commentators – the biggest victims and crybabies of the bunch to begin with.
Conspiracy in U.S. politics on a high in today’s world. Violence begets living with fear, which leads to multiple instances of paranoid disorder. In an individualistic society with limited social control, the mentally disturbed will be taken out by our weaponized minders in blue. But that’s ok as the NRA has political clout across party lines and as U.S. foreign policy is run by the Pentagon and its sponsors, the MIC. It’s about fossil fuel and Arabs …
○ Nord Stream 2: Germany hits out at new US sanctions against Russia
What’s in A Name?
○ The German Dream: A storybook career of Amadou Diallo
Sen. Sanders’ peculiar stance on gun control always bothered me. I expect it bothered a lot of people who were aware of it. My casual observation was that many Sanders supporters in 2016 were unaware of Sanders’ gun-control stance, however.
Those newspaper articles you mention, AG, just sound to me like the products of sheer laziness. And this: “[B]oth Trump and Clinton supporters tried to drive this narrative that the motive for the shooting somehow stemmed from Bernie Sanders and progressivism.” That’s laziness on the part of the writer at Counterpunch. “Clinton supporters tried to drive this narrative”?? Which Clinton supporters? Why not poll folks here who favored Hillary Clinton for the nomination to see how invested they are in this narrative? Why not poll Clinton supporters you meet on the streets of New York City? After you do so, please report back and tell us the percentage who are driving the narrative of violent, unhinged Sanders supporters.
You don’t need “supporters” to drive a narrative; you only need media. The desired media narrative takes hold in many peoples’s minds, quite subconsciously.
AG
P.S. For those who think that the leftiness (read “neocentrist”) media aren’t busily constructing a new anti-Sanders narrative several years before it might be needed…and also for those who are just making believe that they don’t see what’s happening because of their own political and/or profit-making ends:
Action Alert: With Sleazy Innuendo, NYT Lays Virginia Attack at Bernie Sanders’ Feet
Action Alert: With Sleazy Innuendo, NYT Lays Virginia Attack at Bernie Sanders’ Feet
Action Alert: With Sleazy Innuendo, NYT Lays Virginia Attack at Bernie Sanders’ Feet
The New York Times Shamefully Smears Bernie Sanders in Its Latest Lurch Right
And a pretty good look at what Sanders and Corbyn have in common in relation to their failed, corrupt political parties:
Lessons for the left, courtesy of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders
Read the rest of it. It’s quite perceptive.
It’s all about the money, really. Sanders and Corbyn threaten the corporate controllers; said controllers control the centrist media all the way to the outside of the bloated part of my diagram above…where papers like the NY Times and WAPO live in a fictional leftiness, farm-to-table paradise for their desired audience (middle and upper-middle class, mostly white, college-misedumacated, millennial to retirable, all supposedly “reliable” DemRat voters), and the theory is (Which actually remains in place, even after HRC’s overestimation fiasco!!!) that this group of people combined with minority voters and ongoing attacks on the trump administration will sleepwalk the Dems into a recovery after 2016’s terrible beating.
I am here to tell you that it’s not going to happen. It didn’t work this time. There is clearly another force gathering out there in voter land, and it ain’t Trumpism. If the DemRat Party does not reform…and soon…that force will completely walk away from the of party (either not voting at all and/or voting for splinter parties) and it will doom the Dems to another, even worse loss than their last one.
This scenario has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Trump and whatever other Trumpist helpers are forced out of office or simply stymied in all of their efforts by the neocentrist Dem/RatPub in Congress coalition and its media, thus becoming the country’s longest reigning lame duck preznit.
The only way it will not happen…and I think this is quite possible…is if Trump manages to wag the dog in DC with either a war and/or some huge anti-Congress/anti-media scandal and takes the fuck over any which way he can.
Which he is quite capable of trying to do.
Bet on it.
Watch.
AG
Sorry about the sloppy links above.
Here’s the real info:
Action Alert: With Sleazy Innuendo, NYT Lays Virginia Attack at Bernie Sanders’ Feet
Smearing Sanders: From the NYT to MSDNC
The New York Times Shamefully Smears Bernie Sanders in Its Latest Lurch Right
Again…sorry. Too much to do, not enough time to do it all correctly.
AG
The above…fixed links and all…is now a standalone post. Please comment there.
MORE “Just in Case You Haven’t Noticed” Regarding the Media and Bernie Sanders
Thank you…
AG
The Nation George Zornick, Bernie Sanders Is a Russian Agent, and Other Things I Learned This Week
A case study in how fake news is attracting liberals.
The stupid, insane, and/or paid propagandists pushing the Putin-Russia false narrative seem to have stopped growing but neither are they declining.
You write:
Hmmmm….
Maybe because they are non-organic?
Non-human?
Digital?
Could be…
AG
I was hopeful when I read the headlines the other day of Bernie being one of only 2 senators to oppose the bill. Now, seeing the piece you cite, I’m not inclined to give him too much credit, as he seems to have bought into the still-unproven claim about Russia hacking our pristine elections.
Bernie has been great on DP issues, but in FP, and Russiagate specifically, he has missed a big opportunity to restore some sanity to the left side of the aisle.
And I don’t think it’s all that complicated — there simply hasn’t been evidence shown to date to substantiate the major charges against Russia, hacking or collusion, etc.
Very disappointing, but not enough to make me a non-fan.
And, while imperfect, I actually preferred RAND Paul’s explanation of his vote, emphasizing as it did the uselessness of further poking Russia in the eye while we have alleged past China cyberattacks and haven’t done enough here on prevention.
Neither Paul nor Sanders is perfect, Brodie. But they both…along with Elizabeth Warren (also not perfect) and possibly a couple of others…stand head and shoulders above the rest of the Senate as it now exists.
They all have to play politics on some level…otherwise they never would have been elected in the first place.
AG
Yes, imperfect, as I indicated. But the stakes surrounding Russiagate are getting rather ominous, with a negative trendline that seems to point towards actual war in the next 5-10 yrs. And so the usual political game of hiding within the herd of groupthink Dems doesn’t cut it any more.
Still, as I was careful to note for the permanent record here and for those keeping score at home, I remain supportive of the Bernster. Eliz Warren too, though she’s weaker still on taking bold honest positions in the FP area.
Fact remains however that the Dem party sorely needs leaders with more political courage as currently I count zero Dem senators willing to challenge the Russiagate MSM/IC narrative. Où sont les Wayne Morses, Ernest Gruenings, RFKs d’antan?
Let’s use the experience we are having in this community to instruct us.
Booman and the vast majority of his community members here accept the multi-intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the Russian Federation is engaging in thefts and manipulations of information on the World Wide Web (and, potentially, elsewhere) in order to destroy the electorates’ faith in governments which take power through open and credible democratic elections. These interferences quite obviously and ham-handedly took place during the French Presidential election campaign, and other governments established through democratic elections are viewing the Russian Federation and its cutouts as threats to their electoral processes as well.
Community members would be engaging in a bizarre exercise in avoidance if they pretended that Putin did not see the Republican Party and our Nation’s conservative movement as willing accomplices in this task well before 2016, with their multi-systemic, multi-governmental, multi-branch voter suppression laws and regulations. So the motive is there for Putin and his Federation officials and accomplices to have done what evidence shows them to have done, evidence which appears to be growing month by month as investigations continue.
If you are put off by the unwillingness of the government to expose sources and methods by declassifying a ton of information about exactly how the Russian government did what it did, I’d ask you to answer this question: why are almost all Congressional Republicans who have seen the classified evidence accepting the case made by that evidence that the Russian Federation attempted to manipulate the American electorate during the 2016 election?
GOP Congressmembers have great motivation to deny this if it is at all deniable; admitting to this undermines the legitimacy of the election of President Trump and has the potential to undermine the legitimacy of their own elections. Yet they have come forward almost uniformly to state that the Russian Federation intervened in our 2016 election, and Russian interference with the electoral processes of democracies around the world is something which needs to be taken seriously and defeated.
Frog Ponders who accept this evidence are angry about this, and want accountability and better plans moving forward. A small group of people on this blog and elsewhere are attempting to divide the progressive community on this issue.
Not. One. Person. on this blog, and no one I have read or talked to elsewhere in the progressive movement within or without the Democratic Party, is calling for a shooting war with Russia. The fearmongering on that issue is transparently weak.
We don’t want a shooting war with the Russian Federation, Brodie. But Russia is acting in hostility to the interests of the United States, and in Trump they have had a small but crucial part in installing a President of the United States who seeks to remake our Nation’s governance in the image of the Russian Federation’s. This is quite transparently true as well.
I want to respect you here, but this warmongering charge is preposterous, impossible to respect, and deserves a response.
You write:
Do really think that other governments established through whatever sorts of elections are not viewing the U.S. and its cutouts as threats to their governmental processes as well?
Please.
I would agree with much of what you are saying here if only one thing were to be changed. If the people who are hollering about Russian interventions were hollering even louder about U.S. interventions of all kinds including overt and covert military actions over the past 50+ years all over the world.
Until then?
Until then it’s just Spy vs. Spy and Gangster vs. Gangster.
‘Fess up, Centristfield.
You know better, and so do many of the DemRat Firsters here on this site.
The Cold War never ended.
It just became less visible.
Kinder and gentler homicide.
And now the U.S. is reaping the whirlwind that its crimes have stirred up.
What’s sauce for the goose is always and forever sauce for the gander as well.
Also known as “What goes around comes around.”
WTFU.
AG
I wouldn’t doubt that since 1947*, when the CIA was created and further legislation gave power to the national security state, that not more than a couple of years has gone by in between our Deep State guys trying by one direct way or another to topple a foreign govt or seriously influence its electoral process in a way preferable to US national security state/corporate purposes.
And in most cases there’s actual evidence to support those claims even if some covert actions are still, laughably, officially denied. Quite a contrast to the intel allegations-only Russiagate nonsense of today.
* quite a year: in the second half of the year, it saw the birth of the CIA, NSA and USAF, plus, iirc, some noxious piece of fed legislation called the Loyalty Act. Also noteworthy, for you scientist types and historians, was the interrupted visit by our friends, or their android pilots, from somewhere out there, the fellers who crash landed at Roswell. 70th anniversary coming up in a few days — it will be hot out there in early July in the NM desert, but I hope to see a few of you there. (also hope they’ve killed off all the murderous giant ants that used to plague that desert area …)
It remains true: the public has not been allowed to see what evidence, if any, shows Russian state hacking or collusion with the Donald’s campaign. Sen Feinstein recently admitted this — she hasn’t seen it yet, actual evidence.
The multi-agency “conclusion”? Well, overblown at the least, and clearly called an “assessment” (i.e., not a true “finding” or conclusion) by a few hand-picked people , likely carefully screened for their ability to produce the political, not intel-driven, “assessments” that Clapper (or whoever it was) had ordered produced.
Repubs going along on the hacking charge? Not that surprising — it enables them to show their politically expedient anti-Russia/Putin bona fides while that charge doesn’t implicate their Donald in the separate collusion matter.
And asking for the evidence doesn’t necessarily entail revealing sources/methods, which is a convenient excuse to hide the likely fact that there exists no such evidence on the Kremlin.
On the French election, as I recall, while Manu Macron made charges during the campaign against the evil Putin trying to manipulate their election, a post-election finding by the French security agency found no such evidence of Russian state election hacking/manipulation.
Re warmongering, I’m suggesting less that Dems consciously are seeking a shooting war w/the Russkies and more that their recklessness in accepting unfounded charges against Putin, a long string of baseless charges going back years before the most recent election, is logically leading to a situation where our Deep Staters and Dem allies will attempt to force a complete or nearly complete break in relations of all kinds with Russia, isolating them from the west as “enemies” and making it impossible for any president to deal with them rationally should a crisis moment occur and require negotiations.
Others like Stephen Cohen have noted how he hasn’t seen such baseless and relentless anti-Russian propaganda in this country in the 70 year post-WW2 period, including before and during the Missile Crisis. And, he notes, had there been such a sustained period of anti-Russian denigration in all our media leading up to that Crisis, JFK would have found it virtually impossible to negotiate for a deal as he eventually did.
The Obama Administration worked with the Russian Federation and nearly a half-dozen additional nations to set the calls for war aside by negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. There were other agreements and cooperations as well, including an attempt to cohere on a joint policy re. Syria. The claim that the U.S. has irrationally pursued an entirely oppositional relationship with Russia is not shown by the full record.
What do you believe Putin and the Russian Federation have done which has contributed to the current high levels of mistrust and bad relations which currently exist? Is your claim that it is 100% irrational belligerence on the part of our intelligence agencies?
By its omission, you may be conceding that Russia’s anti-democratic ideologies are shared by the modern conservative movement in the United States, and that Trump is not an outlier in this movement, just a particularly outrageously provocative practitioner. That would be a smart concession, because it’s out there for literally anyone with eyes to see.
And we haven’t even gotten into the corrupt financial dealings Trump and the Russian government seems to have been involved in for many years. These dealings aren’t even entirely dependent on U.S. intelligence assessments; they are being revealed by multiple journalists as we speak.
Why does Trump refuse to reveal his full tax returns?
Yoiu write:
“The claim that the U.S. has irrationally pursued an entirely oppositional relationship with Russia is not shown by the full record.”
You have not seen “the full record. No one without top security clearances has a chance of seeing the full, unexpurgated record of what the U.S. has and has not done internationally over the past 50 years. i will bet that there are things on that record that are so tightly controlled that even presidents don’t get within a mile of full knowledge.
Bet on it.
“What do you believe Putin and the Russian Federation have done which has contributed to the current high levels of mistrust and bad relations which currently exist? Is your claim that it is 100% irrational belligerence on the part of our intelligence agencies?”
No. I believe it is totally “rational” competition between two rival gangs, if war itself is rational. i would welcome some real rationality from both sides, but I fear that i will never see it.
“Russia’s anti-democratic ideologies?”
How about those of the U.S.?
What about those of the DNC?
Get real. This “democracy” is a media-controlled sham.
Trump is a crook? So nu? What do you think would happen if the Deep State decided to run an ongoing media war on the Cintons or Schumer or Pelosi?
C’mon…Trump threatened the Deep State’s power and it declared massive media war on him. Those others? They play ball. Bet on that as well.
This system is now a massive criminal conspiracy that includes large portions of the governmental system that is supposed to “impartially” investigate such conspiracies. The fix is in right to the bottom of the barrel of rotten apples that we laughingly refer to as “our” government.
Wake the fuck up.
AG
You’ve got nothing here.
“We deserve to be attacked and should look away from the evidence because of our own past actions, not just the evidence proven but ‘evidence’ unproven and claimed by me” is a remarkably weak take.
I’m enjoying our exchanges these days. Keep it up!
Didn’t Schumer himself say recently, “The CIA has six ways to Sunday to get back at you.”
Now there’s someone in power who knows the consequences of stepping out of line.
And also appears to suggest it’s all a perfectly normal state of affairs …
“And also appears to suggest it’s all a perfectly normal state of affairs …”
Bet on it.
Been that way since Schumer was a Brooklyn schoolboy.
it’s the secret to his “success.” He goes along to get along.
Bet on that as well.
AG
Yes on the Iran deal, in which Russia played an important encouragement or intermediary role. And for a few brief moments in Syria under Obama, it looked like there could be the beginnings of a sustained, cooperative military effort there in the fight against IS/AQ. But the Pentagon/DS people put a stop to that, and Obama was either unwilling or unable to get things back on track.
You’ve set up a bit of a straw man with your assertion that I argued the US record wrt Russia has been entirely oppositional as I don’t recall ever asserting that, as my comments above suggest. But it has been mostly negative in the Obama period and since. And Obama must take responsibility for having relations deteriorate severely during his watch, handing off to his successor the worst in US-Russia relations since the dark days of the CMC (again per Russia expert S Cohen).
And all of that entirely unnecessary. Unless we assume the DS does truly have the power to override presidential initiatives and make it stick, certainly when dealing with a rather weak personality in the Oval. I suspect this is close to the truth.
As for Russian actions, it’s almost always in the Putin era been a matter of them reacting to what we’ve done — Nato especially, but also how they’ve known or perceived how we have acted to destabilize the political situation in various areas near (or inside) Russia — Ukraine most obviously. And when the Russians react, our MSM here and its cousins in Europe always manage not to include in their reporting what US actions might have preceded the Russian move. Curious state of affairs in our journalism — as others like Rbt Parry have often noted.
Re some of Russia’s conservative ideologies, which Putin himself so describes, first, it’s Russia, a newly emerging democracy, all of 25 yrs old at most, a country which under Putin’s rather able economic guidance, has managed to stabilize since the disastrous 90s, and also reverse the net loss in population. It’s my understanding (per the recent Stone interview, but I haven’t double checked) that the recent anti-gay legislation was rather more narrowly focused (teaching/advocating it to under-age kids) than it was portrayed in the press here. While this is to be lamented, given their recent population problems, it’s something to consider in proper context. And important also to recall where this country was just 25 yrs ago on this issue.
Church: Putin probably sees the advantages in having a strong Russian Orthodox Church, especially to affirm traditional values and act as a counter to a large (15%) Muslim population. Conservative, yes, but probably seen as a necessary societal counter-balance. And probably not too much more conservative in certain social attitudes as, say, what the many black churches over here preach.
Elections: at least on a par with or perhaps even better than what passes for electoral democracy here. Do they have the antidemocratic Electoral College, that little feature that counts states instead of voters, which has twice robbed the public of seeing the candidate getting the most votes take the WH? Has there been any substantiated evidence, not just western media allegations, that Putin’s party has sought systematically to suppress opposition party voters or hack their vote count? Does Putin also manage to fake his whopping 80%+ approval ratings?
Press: again, not too dissimilar to what we have here, generally speaking. They have their state-controlled press, but so do we, in our own corporate-owned/DS-penetrated way. They appear to have far more open debate in their electronic media — far more shows, day and night, where important issues of the day are discussed, often with a studio audience and in extended debate format, and not just in tiny 3-4 minute segments as we get spoon-fed here. (further re free speech: anti-Putin tv host Vladimir Posner, a US-born Russian citizen who back in the 80s used to appear over here to explain Glasnost, hosts his own show on a private tv channel, where he’s largely, tho not completely, free to stick it to Vlad and advocate for alternatives)
Observer Gilbert Doctorow, who speaks Russian and is invited to participate in some of these shows, confirms the surprising openness and robustness of media there. Not perfect, but far from what our media falsely claims is the case.
Free Speech/demonstrations: Large demonstrations allowed, permitted of course, not unlike here. Fail to follow those rules, as a far-right opposition figure did recently (NPR held him up as a hero, forgetting conveniently to mention his extreme politics, very tiny following, and failure to adhere to the permit), and you will end up being arrested. Generally I would perceive they have an increasingly tolerant attitude towards public demonstrations, but again look at the far from perfect situation in the US. How did our authorities handle the anti-Wall St protesters for instance?
Finally on Trump: Not releasing his taxes always struck me as someone knowing he has something to hide, and probably not just lower than expected income and paying little tax. Possibly something there to suggest curious foreign source income — but my guess is this has nothing to do with Putin/Kremlin but just the usual Russian mafia types needing some money laundering services.
Thanks for this. It’s helpful to our understanding of a number of your views.
“It remains true: the public has not been allowed to see what evidence, if any, shows Russian state hacking or collusion with the Donald’s campaign. Sen Feinstein recently admitted this — she hasn’t seen it yet, actual evidence.”
This claim does not appear to be sustainable in the face of official statements from Senator Feinstein such as this one:
“…The Yahoo hack isn’t the only cyberattack connected with Russia. U.S. intelligence agencies have separately confirmed that Russia engaged in cyberattacks to undermine the 2016 election.
We cannot allow this pattern to continue. The United States must take steps not only to bring those responsible to justice but also ensure future attacks are not allowed to occur in the first place.”
The charge you make here attempts to blur the real line between two things: “Russian state hacking and “collusion with the Donald’s campaign”. The first appears to be proven to Senator Feinstein; the second is not proven to Feinstein.
It’s disappointing when people attempt to fudge the facts with these methods. And it’s important to note that the investigations of potential “collusion with the Donald’s campaign”, both within and without the U.S. government, are ongoing.
Your link didn’t work for me, but nothing really new she added from that quote. It’s still “intelligence agencies say/confirm”. We the public still haven’t seen the actual evidence. And it’s likely no better than the evidence offered in the multi-agency joke of a report/assessment issued earlier this year, meaning none, nada.
Get back to me when you guys have the actual goods.
Meanwhile I must now take leave to try to enjoy what’s left of a scorching hot Sunday here in La La Land. Maybe go to one of my favorite Russian restaurants for dinner.
If la la Land is where I think it is, I’d avail myself of one of the many excellent Mexican restaurants instead. (P.S. I know it was a joke.)
Here in flyover country it’s hot AND humid with thunderstorms and predictions of damaging winds and hail. Count your blessings.
Well, we had intended to eat Russian tonight, to celebrate the Russian futbol team’s victory yesterday over the NZ squad, which outcome, I’ve now heard from the western media, citing US intel sources, Putin quietly arranged with the refs.
Instead, we went Vietnamese and a lovely simple dinner of noodles and chicken and bean sprouts to celebrate FD. Dessert at a nearby local chocolatier place specializing in gelato. Great non-Starbucks place to meet the locals.
Senator Feinstein has seen classified information which support the IC’s conclusion, as have a number of Senators in the GOP Caucus, all of whom support the IC’s conclusion.
At the least, I’d ask for a reconsideration of your claim that Feinstein has admitted that she has not seen evidence of Russian state hacking with the intent of interfering with the 2016 election. That is not an accurate summary of her public statements.
The reed you are hanging onto, that Feinstein is not claiming to have seen evidence so far of direct collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Federation in that hacking and dissemination of stolen information during the 2016 campaign, is the same thin reed that the President and his supporters are currently hanging onto, even as the investigative ground is moving underneath their feet. It’s a less than compelling position.
The investigations by government officials and journalists around the world continues. One thing that has become crystal clear: WikiLeaks will not be a conduit of information which creates problems for Donald Trump an/or the Russian Federation. They will continue to flog stolen information in their attempts to defend Trump and the Russians, though.
Yes, the DiFi statement I was referring to, but which I failed to properly describe, was in fact on the lack of evidence she had been shown on the Putin-Donald alleged collusion.
Hacking is another issue. But still not confirmed with actual evidence. And her statement is ambiguous at best about whether she a/o staff was able to see the actual underlying evidence, or were instead just told by an IC operative that it was there, and so “confirmed.”
Iow, her statement re Russian hacking still seems to reside in the Hearsay domain, double hearsay at best.
The public on that issue and the others is still being kept in the dark about what is, or probably isn’t, there. Mere bald statements from her that it exists, and because she was told it was, will not nearly suffice.
Sorry, no sale.
You write:
“Senator Feinstein has seen classified information which support the IC’s conclusion, as have a number of Senators in the GOP Caucus, all of whom support the IC’s conclusion.”
There are some questions remaining about the validity of that statement, of course. Senators are experts in lawyerly doublespeak… as are you apparently, although not nearly as good as the high level pros like Feinstein…so much of what has been said about the evidence hat they “saw” can be contrued a number of ways. But let’s assume that thedid actually see classified reports that “support the IC’s conclusion.”
#1-Cui bono? The IC, of course.
#2-Cui bono squared If there were classified documents that do not support what the IC has been claiming for so long, would the good senators have been shown those??? Please!!!
#3-Our system is predicated…supposedly, although this is not so prominent a concept today as it was say 50 years ago…on the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, since the IC has been thoroughly and decisively proven “guilty” of serial lying over many decades (I mean…that’s part of their job description, right?), why would anyone truly trust documents that intelligence sources present as “proof” of their position, especially if that proof has not been opened up to public inspection and possible opposition or disproof?
I so far neither believe nor disbelieve what the interested parties…the IC, the Trumpists, the Neocentrist/Duopoly/DemoPublican Party, the Russians, the various interested media…none of them.
SHOW ME THE BEEF!!!
None of them have done so.
Until then, this whole thing is just another, much more complicated version of the Schroedinger’s cat experiment. Until we actually open the box…in public, in sight of everyone…we won’t know if the cat is alive, dead, Russian, U.S. Intelligence, some other set of interested hackers public or private…in fact, we won’t even know if there is a cat in there.
So far, all we have presented is the box, labeled differently by different observers.
“Guilty!!!” “Innocent”, etc.
I repeat:
SHOW ME THE BEEF!!!
Until then? Fuck off. You’re just parroting propaganda no matter whose side you want to appear to be supporting.
AG
During the campaign Hillary called for shooting down Russian warplanes if they violated the no fly zone. That would put is in shooting war with Russia.
She called for the creation of one, which would logically have put Russian war planes in great jeopardy, directly in the crosshairs. Extremely reckless and dangerous policy proposal. And from a supposedly smart, experienced, stable person.
I agree. The Syrian no-fly zone was by far Clinton’s worst policy position.
Nonetheless, Clinton ran on the most economically and socially progressive domestic platform of any viable general election POTUS candidate in our lifetimes, and in our parents’ lifetimes.
And for one of many, many direct comparatives in foreign policy, Clinton did not make extremely belligerent calls to jack up military spending, make tactical pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, tear up the Iran peace deal made in alliance with Russia and many other crucial nations, place in peril our NATO alliance, and foment turmoil with practitioners of Islam and the nations which govern majorities of Muslims. Each of these were centerpieces of the Trump campaign.
Some so-called progressives came here in the summer and fall to complain that the blog host and the community should stop talking about these positions from the Republican POTUS nominee, along with Trump’s manifestly unsuitable temperament for such a powerful office.
I enthusiastically supported Clinton in the general election campaign, and didn’t attempt to organize voters against her candidacy by flogging specious claims made against her and her supporters. Subsequent events have shown this to be by far the more defensible choice.
You write:
“…Clinton ran on the most economically and socially progressive domestic platform of any viable general election POTUS candidate in our lifetimes, and in our parents’ lifetimes.”
Oh.
i thought that was Obama.
Oh.
My bad.
Nevermind.
Your freind…
Emily Litella
And I supported her mostly good DP, except on TPP and fracking. Generally we saw a candidate at least hearing some of the complaints from the Bernie 45% wing and it made her a better candidate, if still too flawed. As with her Syria suggestion, her call to further destabilize the Muslim world with her advice to oust Gaddafi, and her knowledge as SoS that many of our military activities there were actually intended to benefit the IS/AQ forces as they fought against Assad.
Hard to say what might have been had she bothered to campaign in the upper MW. Would she somehow have softened her no-fly Syria stance — doubtful. If so, we would by now be much closer to another CMC and WW3 scenario.
Of course, as I noted here before, with Donald we get the wildly erratic presidenting in FP and the appalling, mean-spirited hard-right DP, making actual overt civil war in this country by 2020-21 far more likely given all the DP horrors he and the GOP congress are about to unload. And Donald doesn’t strike me as someone to easily step aside if, say, the 2020 election ends up badly for him. He would charge election rigging by the Dems. I think this is not an entirely unlikely scenario. He’s that nutso and power-driven.
Not my lifetime. Richard Nixon was far more Progressive, calling for negative income tax to replace welfare, an idea that is now making a resurgence.
Booman Tribune ~ Neocentrist Hostility to Bernie Sanders-Just In Case You Have Any Doubts
The theme of Russia attacking western Europe seems even less substantial then the Russia hacking US election story, at least there it is something concrete that Russia is supposed to have done. In the western Europe theme there are very vague hints at Brexit, but nothing more concrete, in contrast to the US billionaires, US-UK companies with ties to the security establishment and Saudi billionaires are directly tied to dark (and illegal) money campaigns. Netherlands? As I posted here, the far right there had no donations from Russia, but donations from the US.
So what remains? The Macron hack?
AP Interview: France warns of risk of war in cyberspace
As to why another impression can be had if you follow US media:
AP Interview: France warns of risk of war in cyberspace
Maybe Rogers just lied? I think the NSA have something a tradition of that.
Thx for sharing … nowadays one needs a searchlight to find balanced comments at the pond.
○ Brexit minister linked to group that used loophole to channel £435,000 to DUP | The Guardian |
○ The strange tale of the DUP, Brexit, a mysterious £425,000 donation and a Saudi prince | The Independent |
My earlier diary about the Brexit link with Trump’s campaign …
○ Mercer’s Attachment to Leave.EU Questioned; Trump’s Donor – March 2017
○ Brexit: Putin Did It! – Feb. 2017
U.S. Intelligence Community is delivering misinformation of Russia’s influence in Western European elections. In the Netherlands the electronic voting machines were replaced by ballots with red marker and a hand count! In France, after the Macron election, the statements of Russia’s influence were retracted.
○ France says no trace of Russian hacking presidential election Macron – June 2, 2017
○ French Cyber Security Leader Guillaume Poupard: No trace of Russian hacking fingerprint APT28 by fjallstrom on June 16, 2017
I’m with you on this. And I say that as an unrepentant old Cold Warrior who hates Putin’s guts.
Here is the unclassified intelligence report about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election issued in early January.
And here is the more recent NSA report revealed by The Intercept which claims evidence that Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.
In addition, since January there are additional investigatory discoveries which have been made by both Federal government entities, government entities of other nations, and journalists in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Gee, did those emails come from putin@gru.ru ?
>> the Putin-Russia false narrative
so you’ve gone past “unproven” and have evidence that the claims are false? Please share.