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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

This is the stupidest thing ever- and when I tell intelligent people it is stupid and they don't want to hear, cuz, TRUMP IS BAD, it really discourages me.

The narrative was Trump promised the Chinese something so Ivanka can get her trademarks granted. Of course with time we see that Trump didn't sell out to the Chinese, instead he started a trade war.

But more immediately the whole thing was nonsense. If you give me $500 I'll get you a Chinese trademark. I won't have to promise sweetheart deals from the US- they get granted routinely. If Ivanka ever got the Chinese government to enforce a trademark and seize counterfeit stuff, well that would be a smoking gun, but granting a Trademark? Please.

But to be fair, the trademarks she got were things like "Louis Vuittan", "Dolce & Gabbana", & "1984". They even threw in "Fake News(tm)".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I love this guy. Fucking love him.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-stein-901593/

The #Resistance has come up with all sorts of words for such fifth-columnists and deviationists: they are “false-balancers” or “false equivalencers,” “neo-Naderites,” “purity-testers,” “both-sidesists,” “whataboutists,” “horseshoe theorists,” “Russia skeptics” or “Russia denialists,” and “anti-anti-Trumpers.” Such heretics are all ultimately seen as being on “team Putin.”

This witch-hunting insanity isn’t just dangerous, it’s a massive breach from reality. Trump’s campaign was a clown show. He had almost no institutional backing. His “ground game” was nonexistent: his “campaign” was a TV program based almost wholly around unscripted media appearances. Trump raised just over half the $1.2 billion Hillary pulled in (making him the first presidential candidate dating back to 1976 to win with a funds deficit). He didn’t prepare a victory speech, for the perfectly logical reason that he never expected to win.

Even if you posit the most elaborate theories of Russian interference (which I don’t, but of course I’m denialist scum), what happened in 2016 was still almost entirely a domestic story, with Trump benefiting from long-developing public rejection of the political establishment.

Rather than confront the devastating absurdity of defeat before an ad-libbing game show host who was seemingly trying to lose – a black comedy that is 100% in America’s rich stupidity tradition – Democrats have gone all-in on this theory of foreign infiltration. House speaker Nancy Pelosi even said as much in a White House meeting, pointing at Trump and proclaiming: “All roads lead to Putin.”

[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.

[Hank Chinaski]

So I’ve always heard that before a porn actor does an anal scene they clean out the pipes, as it were. Today I had a colonoscopy, so yesterday I had to ummm... and it brought a question to mind:

Do the actors do the full 24 clean out, or is it more superficial?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

That's one distinction, and a thin one. The similarities between Putin's leverage and the leverage lobbyists and big donors can apply, OTOH, are numerous.

I also don't know, nor do you, that Trump lied about his involvement with Russia in a setting in which it would have consequences. As I recall it, Cohen was the stooge tasked with that job. I could be wrong, but I think Trump only lied to the media about the Russian tower, and his connections with Russia. (If he'd lied to Mueller, we'd know, because that lie would have conflicted with Cohen's testimony, and that conflicting interrogatory answer would have been cited by Mueller. Indeed, it would be criminal conduct which Mueller could not ignore, and most certainly included in his list of possibly criminal actions undertaken by Trump.)

Your "leverage" here would be Trump's fear that Putin would out him as a man who lies to the press. Trump does not care about that. He does that every day. Putin's real leverage is that Trump owes banks and people over which Putin has some control a shit ton of money. Like that corporate donor who paid Marco Rubio's wife a ton of money which helped Rubio get out of debt, Putin is most likely using the power of the purse. Which is how business is done in Washington.

I think you are trying to distinguish between Putin and K Street and Corporate America because:

1. It shows Putin's actions are actually pedestrian in terms of arm-twisting politicians; and,
2. Such an argument indicts our political system more generally, which makes Trump look less unique than you want him to be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I also don't know, nor do you, that Trump lied about his involvement with Russia in a setting in which it would have consequences.

Not specifically on point, but the guy lies about everything. It is absolutely how he is wired. I don't understand why, after so many years of this, people still give him the benefit of the doubt.