US election 2020

[Jezza]

Sanders' history of praising leftist dictators.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/poli ... index.html

[thesoretoothsayer]

We don't deserve Trump.
He is the Yoda of trolling.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 72672?s=20

[David]

Sanders' history of praising leftist dictators.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/poli ... index.html

Quelle horreur! More sordid details within:

Sanders has for decades singled out the broadly positive achievements of autocratic regimes -- like health care and education programs in Cuba and Nicaragua -- while mixing in criticism of their governments' anti-democratic behavior. His views have also been fueled by a fundamental rejection of American efforts to boost right-wing governments across Central and South America.

Praising the good things and condemning the bad things they did? Well we can’t accept that kind of extremist rhetoric, can we?

[David]

This sums up why I remain so sceptical of Russian interference claims:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... bi-957377/

The core of the argument about Russian interference rested upon two major news stories: the hack of the DNC in 2016, and a campaign by the “Internet Research Agency” to push “divisive” social media content.

The former is a leak of true information about the correspondence of senior Democratic Party officials (Jeremy Corbyn was similarly accused of abetting Russian disinformation efforts when damning-but-real materials about the British National Health Service were leaked). The latter? A story about a group of silly memes, amplified a billionfold by the American commercial news reports about these same efforts.

Did the Russians actually do these things? Maybe. It’s not confirmed either way. The sourcing even today remains tied to the same people who’ve lied about a thousand other things, both in the course of this story and before, from WMDs to the missile gap. As we saw this week, when officials quietly began admitting their ideas about “what Russia wants” rested upon perhaps “overstated” interpretations of intelligence, many of these narratives have been elaborate exercises in reading tea leaves. And they won’t let us see the tea leaves.

But if there is an official Russian agency behind, say, the Internet Research Agency, those efforts pale in comparison to the enormous institutional effort in the United States to use the narrative for other ends.

[...]

Last week was a perfect example. Intelligence officials briefed Sanders about a belief on their part that Russia wanted to “help” his campaign, although the nature of this assistance was not specific enough to be disclosed.

The Post noted “U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’ campaign against Hillary Clinton,” a typically deceptive construction.

Prosecutors asserted a Russian effort to boost Sanders rather than finding it as true. Nobody has seen the “proof” of this story, not even the Russians charged by Robert Mueller with the conspiracy to help Sanders. In fact, that evidence was deemed so sensitive that Mueller sought to prevent the Russian defendants from seeing it in discovery. The proof was somehow so dangerous, we had to overturn centuries of legal tradition to keep it hidden.

[...]

The logic of Russiagate is now beyond absurd. Vladimir Putin, somehow in perfect sync with American voting trends, seeks to elevate both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, apparently to compete against himself in the general election, in a desperate effort to suppress the terrifying political might of, say, Joe Biden. I doubt even Neera Tanden in the depths of a wine coma could believe this plot now.

That this is a dumb story is characteristic. The people pushing it don’t have any smart arguments left for remaining in power. Through decades of corporate giveaways, trickle-up economics, pointless wars, and authoritarianism, they’ve failed the entire population. They are the ones directly threatened by any hint that the population is awakening to its decades-long disenfranchisement.

[pietillidie]

^Others believe the approach is more sophisticated, though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opin ... nders.html

[Pies4shaw]

It feels a little like Groundhog Day. The US administration (Trump’s A-G included) accepts that the Russians did interfere in 2016. The question whether they interfered by leaking “true” information is scarcely to the point. No doubt there have been ridiculous beat ups in the media and maybe the effectiveness of the interference wasn’t that great but there’s as much use in being “sceptical” about the fact of Russian interference as in insisting that Elvis isn’t dead.

[David]

^Others believe the approach is more sophisticated, though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opin ... nders.html

I think that’s an appropriately cautious piece, though still more charitable to the establishment narratives than I’d be inclined to be. One thing I’d ask is: do you feel that the evidence for this interference is at a higher level than when the same agencies were providing dossiers on Iraq’s supposed WMDs? And what makes those sources more credible this time? (The fact that the Trump administration is on board doesn’t fill me with confidence, P4S!) Also, when we say "the Russians", is that an assertion of Russian government involvement? Or just, you know, some Russians? Putting the Facebook ads and fake "Black Lives Matter" groups to one side, I’m still not at all convinced that the DNC leaks were a Russian hacking operation, for instance.

[Pies4shaw]

"The Russians", some Russians, the Russian security services - take your pick. Whoever it was, it doesn't seem to have been a Republican with a VPN and a Moscow IP address or a guy who went to Russia one time.

25 Russians were indicted on relevant charges - 12 intelligence agents for their involvement in the DNC leak and associated money-laundering: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/p ... cking.html and 13 individuals (one said to have "close ties to Putin") and three organisations for other efforts to influence the 2016 election outcomes: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

[pietillidie]

^Others believe the approach is more sophisticated, though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opin ... nders.html

I think that’s an appropriately cautious piece, though still more charitable to the establishment narratives than I’d be inclined to be. One thing I’d ask is: do you feel that the evidence for this interference is at a higher level than when the same agencies were providing dossiers on Iraq’s supposed WMDs? And what makes those sources more credible this time? (The fact that the Trump administration is on board doesn’t fill me with confidence, P4S!) Also, when we say "the Russians", is that an assertion of Russian government involvement? Or just, you know, some Russians? Putting the Facebook ads and fake "Black Lives Matter" groups to one side, I’m still not at all convinced that the DNC leaks were a Russian hacking operation, for instance.

WMDs are exactly why you believe some of it and maybe most of it. WMDs were not only a novel fiction, created out of thin air, but they were logistically very unlikely. Hacking and social media influence campaigns are so commonplace, and so readily implemented, and so under-attended, they can be assumed to be taking place up front, like US interference in Latin America under Reagan. Similarly, that a lowlife like Trump gets by on shady deals with crooks and conmen is a known; a given. And we know exactly where Facebook and Google stand in all this (and where Twitter stood until very recently).

Working out the details beyond the current convictions, themselves too readily ignored, is not easy. But neither was tracking US activity in Latin America or Afghanistan for that matter. But Trump doesn't get to start this game as an unblemished newborn; instead, he deserves to live and die by the sword of his own historic behaviour. You can't use the intransparency he grants himself as Pharaoh to protect him from a very well-deserved reputation.

If you want to get rid of the intrigue and intransparency, and to get at the truth, cut the head off that snake first. I think you'll find it's the same dead snake either way, unless you think leaders should be rewarded for being justly viewed as serial liars and conmen, and for being deservedly reviled throughout their entire lives.

[Wokko]

Biden's back from the dead. Bernie got smashed after taking the lead and Biden's been the one to take advantage.

http://dlvr.it/RQypRj

[David]

He’ll definitely win South Carolina, along with a few southern states coming up soon. But Sanders still has a big polling lead in California and Texas, among other big states voting on Tuesday, and most of the states Biden is doing well in only have small delegate pools. I think Biden’s only hope right now is that he wins by a big margin in South Carolina, takes that momentum into Super Tuesday and does better than expected there, too. I honestly think he’s a long shot at this point and his campaign is running on fumes, but we’ll know a lot more about where everything stands in three days.

[Wokko]

Most of the media, and the non-Fox liberal media especially have gleefully called South Carolina for Joe. Talk of big Super Tuesday bumps etc.

The big takeaway for me is that Sanders isn't exactly popular with blacks and Trump has been surging in this demographic which doesn't bode well for the General if Bernie wins the nomination. Put it any way you like, but black Americans aren't enthusiastic about voting for an old Jewish guy.

[Wokko]

Tom Steyer drops out despite a probable 3rd place in South Carolina (0 delegates).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... e-n1146286

[David]

[Wokko]