Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sebby, when you talk about Trump and Russia, you have this weird myopia. You are only interested in Russia's impact on the 2016 election, and you are only interested in saying it's not interesting. IMO, whether the Russia had a material effect on the result of the 2016 election is only a close question because the election was so narrowly decided that a great many things could have been material -- in that sense, the result was overdetermined.

There are a number of questions about Trump and Russia that are more interesting to me, that you just ignore, including:

- How much has Trump's business depending on Russian money?
- How much money laundering has Trump's business been doing for Russians?
- Why was Russia trying to help Trump during the 2016 election?
- Why has Trump been so incredibly solicitous of Putin and Russia since getting elected President? (Also true of a small number of people close to him, such as Jarod Kushner and Michael Flynn.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, when you talk about Trump and Russia, you have this weird myopia. You are only interested in Russia's impact on the 2016 election, and you are only interested in saying it's not interesting. IMO, whether the Russia had a material effect on the result of the 2016 election is only a close question because the election was so narrowly decided that a great many things could have been material -- in that sense, the result was overdetermined.

There are a number of questions about Trump and Russia that are more interesting to me, that you just ignore, including:

- How much has Trump's business depending on Russian money?
- How much money laundering has Trump's business been doing for Russians?
- Why was Russia trying to help Trump during the 2016 election?
- Why has Trump been so incredibly solicitous of Putin and Russia since getting elected President? (Also true of a small number of people close to him, such as Jarod Kushner and Michael Flynn.)

When did I say it's not interesting? It's enormously interesting. Because, as you suggest, Russian marketing may have been one of a number of small factors that gifted Trump a thin margin of voters that put him over the top.

But this requires us to examine the rest of why Trump got elected - the overwhelming majority of the reasons Trump was elected.

Those - which number many multiples of the impact of Russian marketing - lie at the feet of the policies favored by the people who are trying to focus exclusively on Russia as the cause of his election.

It's simple deflection - a refusal to take responsibility, a scapegoat on which people can blame his election without having to examine the fact that We Own His Election at 50X the Level any Russians Do.

And when I say "We," I mean the Left, the Right, the Middle -- everybody who's watched the trends emerging over the past few decades that have created a really angry 1/2 of the country that wants to burn things down, but figured, "They'll never get traction... Never acquire power."

Well, they did. And now, rather than reflect on how we all contributed to this, a huge portion of our country has chosen to embrace a bullshit narrative that this was all Russian meddling.*

There was Russian meddling. And maybe that was the last yard Trump needed to win in 2016. We can discuss that. But how about we first discuss what drove him the other 80 or so yards down the field? How about instead of trying to deflect, we examine what our domestic policies did to cause his election. Then, after we examine all of that - which is voluminous - we can spend a bit of time analyzing the minimal portion attributable to Putin.

______
* I think there's an unsaid strategy among non-populists that the best way to deal with populists is by ignoring their demands, discrediting them as an aberration, and using flawed and false narratives to do so if necessary. This has never worked in history. In fact, it's counterproductive, causing the anger that led to the populism to increase. Flagging the Big Lies, the Establishment Narratives, is what drives populism. The forces aligned against populism have worked their ass off to drive anti-populist narratives since 2016. Trump has frustrated it all with two words: Fake News.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When did I say it's not interesting? It's enormously interesting. Because, as you suggest, Russian marketing may have been one of a number of small factors that gifted Trump a thin margin of voters that put him over the top.

But this requires us to examine the rest of why Trump got elected - the overwhelming majority of the reasons Trump was elected.

Those - which number many multiples of the impact of Russian marketing - lie at the feet of the policies favored by the people who are trying to focus exclusively on Russia as the cause of his election.

It's simple deflection - a refusal to take responsibility, a scapegoat on which people can blame his election without having to examine the fact that We Own His Election at 50X the Level any Russians Do.

And when I say "We," I mean the Left, the Right, the Middle -- everybody who's watched the trends emerging over the past few decades that have created a really angry 1/2 of the country that wants to burn things down, but figured, "They'll never get traction... Never acquire power."

Well, they did. And now, rather than reflect on how we all contributed to this, a huge portion of our country has chosen to embrace a bullshit narrative that this was all Russian meddling.*

There was Russian meddling. And maybe that was the last yard Trump needed to win in 2016. We can discuss that. But how about we first discuss what drove him the other 80 or so yards down the field? How about instead of trying to deflect, we examine what our domestic policies did to cause his election. Then, after we examine all of that - which is voluminous - we can spend a bit of time analyzing the minimal portion attributable to Putin.

______
* I think there's an unsaid strategy among non-populists that the best way to deal with populists is by ignoring their demands, discrediting them as an aberration, and using flawed and false narratives to do so if necessary. This has never worked in history. In fact, it's counterproductive, causing the anger that led to the populism to increase. Flagging the Big Lies, the Establishment Narratives, is what drives populism. The forces aligned against populism have worked their ass off to drive anti-populist narratives since 2016. Trump has frustrated it all with two words: Fake News.

The one thing I’ve seen Russian meddling proven to have done is to convince solid D votes that 3rd party is the only answer. I’ve proven with math how important those votes were.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The one thing I’ve seen Russian meddling proven to have done is to convince solid D votes that 3rd party is the only answer. I’ve proven with math how important those votes were.

Compare that to the number of D votes who didn't show up because they supported Bernie and concluded he was fucked by the establishment wing of his party.

The people who voted for Stein were people who did not think Hillary's election was much of an improvement over Trump's election, or thought Hillary had it in the bag.

The establishment in both parties still doesn't seem to understand that, in 2016, the voters wanted, more than any particular candidate's election, to simply destroy the establishment's grip on power.

(For a long time, in many regards, rather stagnant systems have persisted in commerce, politics, government. Tech has upended some of it, but it can't do enough alone. People seem to desire a form of reset, but no one knows what form it should take. Hillary was the antithesis of the concept of reset.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When did I say it's not interesting? It's enormously interesting.

My bad.

eta: Whoops, I take it back. You quickly shifted from talking about Russia to talking about other stuff. Clearly: Russia not interesting to you.

But this requires us to examine the rest of why Trump got elected - the overwhelming majority of the reasons Trump was elected.

No it doesn't. We could have a conversation about Russia and what it's doing, rather than having another conversation about why Trump was elected.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My bad.

eta: Whoops, I take it back. You quickly shifted from talking about Russia to talking about other stuff. Clearly: Russia not interesting to you.



No it doesn't. We could have a conversation about Russia and what it's doing, rather than having another conversation about why Trump was elected.

We can. And I'd be happy to do so without getting into a stupid discussion about how it "stole" the election for Trump.

I'm also happy to discuss what leverage Russia may have over Trump and whether he is being pressured by Putin. I think he is. I think he owes shit tons of money to Russians. And they probably have some ugly intel on him.

It appears a reasonable conclusion that he is being favorable to the Russians. It is not a reasonable conclusion to assert that Russians are a major reason he won the election.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It appears a reasonable conclusion that he is being favorable to the Russians.

I would take that as the start of the conversation, rather than the conclusion. Why has he been acting this way? I honestly don't know. I'd rather avoid conspiracy theories, but it's just crazy how relentlessly he serves Putin's interests.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would take that as the start of the conversation, rather than the conclusion. Why has he been acting this way? I honestly don't know. I'd rather avoid conspiracy theories, but it's just crazy how relentlessly he serves Putin's interests.

There is no conspiracy. These idiots seeing one need a dictionary. A conspiracy involves people acting together. Trump is being acted upon, manipulated.

Putin is behaving in the way endless corporations and donors do in DC every day. They arm twist politicians with money and the fear of what their money given to a politician’s opponents can do.

Putin can damage Trump, just the same way a well heeled or corporate donor can any politician it wishes to. Putin’s actions are those of a power broker. The “conspiracy” our media has concocted (because common media consumers and many low information reporters like conspiracy stories) is identical to the relationship between powerful lobbyists and politicians. I’d say all Putin needs is an office on K Street. But he’s already probably got a dozen, through countless untraceable intermediaries.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is no conspiracy. These idiots seeing one need a dictionary. A conspiracy involves people acting together. Trump is being acted upon, manipulated.

Putin is behaving in the way endless corporations and donors do in DC every day. They arm twist politicians with money and the fear of what their money given to a politician’s opponents can do.

Putin can damage Trump, just the same way a well heeled or corporate donor can any politician it wishes to. Putin’s actions are those of a power broker. The “conspiracy” our media has concocted (because common media consumers and many low information reporters like conspiracy stories) is identical to the relationship between powerful lobbyists and politicians. I’d say all Putin needs is an office on K Street. But he’s already probably got a dozen, through countless untraceable intermediaries.

I think a conspiracy is much easier to show than this. For example, if you have Campaign official X arranging for Russian operative Y to work with Group Z to fund Republican operations benefiting the campaign, you have a conspiracy.

Of course, X = Manafort, Y = Butina, and Z = NRA. Surprise!

Not every conspiracy is a Manchurian candidate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Putin can damage Trump, just the same way a well heeled or corporate donor can any politician it wishes to.

Nope. Putin, at minimum, can prove that Trump has continually lied about his relationship with Russia. That is materially different than being able to take his money and back another candidate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Putin can damage Trump, just the same way a well heeled or corporate donor can any politician it wishes to. Putin’s actions are those of a power broker. The “conspiracy” our media has concocted (because common media consumers and many low information reporters like conspiracy stories) is identical to the relationship between powerful lobbyists and politicians. I’d say all Putin needs is an office on K Street. But he’s already probably got a dozen, through countless untraceable intermediaries.

I'm sorry, I know that you're trying to make a point about how corrupt business as usual is, but this is nuts. Putin is categorically different from someone with a lot of money. There are a lot of people with a lot of money, and the President is often making some of them unhappy, but usually because he is making other Americans happy. Putin is not an American. If Putin were to reveal that Trump had done something covert for him, it would have a stench of betrayal that is different. Putin also is different because he has the resources of a whole 'nother country.

Corporate donors get play partly because the political parties don't have to betray their principles much to do it. They can find a way to give a favor by doing something they were elected to do (tax cuts!). But Trump's weird relationship with Russia seems like a personal thing with Putin. It's not like he has some special affinity for the Russian culture or people. It's very personal.