Russians didn't hack the election by any reasonable definition of the word, c'mon.
As I've mentioned, I have basically no right-wing friends, but there are a lot of friends-of-friends on Facebook. Particularly one guy who's loyally liberal but pretty much all his friends are nuts. Judging by them, the groupthink is that this is a witch-hunt, and either completely morally neutral or bad but just run-of-the-mill politics-as-usual bad and no worse than stuff everyone knows Democrats do.
I have no idea how it plays with people who don't pay attention to politics. I mean, I assume it's not on their radar yet, but eventually it will be for everyone but the really blinkered.
It will finally make a dent in the public conciseness when it is revealed that the pee hooker story is indeed true.
It's illegal to accept even campaign contributions from foreign types. If there was coordination for campaign actions, that's even more illegal.
4 to 1. American xenophobia can work for you.
1: It is safe to assume that the Russians executed any bit of hackery that they could possibly pull off. It may not have been election machine hacking because our system is a fragmented mess, but they interfered in every possible way they could. (Also I think it's an open question whether key district voting machines were actually hacked.)
5: I'm saying even if the accusations are true (and I think they probably are), it doesn't constitute hacking the election. Clinton did get way more votes, after all. Unless Putin went back in time to trick Jefferson et al into giving us a dumb constitution, and us into worshipping it for no reason, I don't see a reason to blame anyone but ourselves for this result.
Yeah, stealing emails is hacking 101. Unless you are willing to argue that that had no effect on the election, I'm fine with the "hacked the election" construction. What they did was far more effective than tampering with individual voting machines.
It may not have been election machine hacking because our system is a fragmented mess, but they interfered in every possible way they could.
Everyone says that having a fragmented mess of a system makes it difficult to hack, but I wonder if it's true. It's true that it makes it difficult to pwn the entire system because there won't be a single exploit that works on every machine, but that's not what you're trying to do; you're trying to hack some of them - ideally in, as you say, a few key districts.
Unless Putin went back in time to trick Jefferson et al into giving us a dumb constitution
This seems like an unreasonably distant set of goalposts.
Russia hacked the DNC, stole private correspondence, handed it off to Wikileaks to publish. This is largely beyond contention.
Russia hacked the DCCC and seems to have handed internal campaign intel to the RNC.
Russia hacked various state election databases to unknown ends. One school of thought is that they were investigating the potential of directly attacking election machinery, either to rig the vote or engage in a DDOS on election day, and decided against it.
I'm much less interested in quibbling over the best choice of words to describe these acts than in identifying and punishing the bad actors involved.
Everyone says that having a fragmented mess of a system makes it difficult to hack, but I wonder if it's true.
From a systems perspective, its absolutely not true. The fragmented mess leaves a much broader attack surface, and sets the stage for cascading from small failures into large failures - as occurred with the electoral college.
8: This isn't hacking, it's garden variety rat-fucking of the sort that happens every election. A lot of people have problems that it's Russia doing this rather than a domestic actor, but I don't see why it's worse.
7: Madison, not Jefferson. And you're also wrong re: hacking.
7: So you're saying we shouldn't blame Trump for conspiring with the Russians? He couldn't help himself? The system is to blame?
7: In a close election, any number of small factors will have been decisive. Obviously, the electoral college was decisive. Just as obviously, malfeasance by the media was decisive. There are extremely plausible cases to be made that interference by James Comey and Russia were decisive. There are no doubt other factors that were decisive.
You see this all the time, though -- this denial of multiple causes from people who are offended by mention of one particular cause. It's a mystery to me how smart people can fall victim to a belief this self-evidently wrong.
Agree with 11. Russia's hacking was with the goal of undermining faith in the American system of democracy. It seems they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Russians didn't hack the election by any reasonable definition of the word, c'mon.
OK, "hack the election" is overly glib. There's no evidence that they hacked the voting machines. If any one individual could be accused of unfair manipulation of the election, it's James Comey, and AFAIK no one is suggesting it's due to Russia ties, just because he's a partisan hack whose appointment by Obama was a gross error of bipartisanship. And I'm pretty sure we've achieved comity that in an election as close as the 2016 was, there's no one cause, there's lots of things that could have made the difference and are roughly equally responsible.
That being said, Russia is definitely one of those things, is probably in the top 5, is the only foreign government in that top 5, is actually a malign actor rather than something that's an accepted part of the process (as opposed to political strategists or the vapid media), and this is new and weird. Agreed?
17: What? No. If a large number of factors are jointly responsible then they're not individually decisive, by definition.
Russian hacks helped make Comey possible, because they helped create the image that Clinton was getting away with something, vis a vis email. Also, a significant fraction of people got the impression that the Russians were able to hack email because of the lax security of Clinton's email server.
21: If one of those large number of factors is an actual crime, I would think you could be in the clear blaming that one.
20: Yeah, inevitably the result of an election is determined by a giant confluence of factors. I'm not interested in figuring out how much the Comey or Russia stuff influenced it; I suspect very little, but whatever. Mostly I'm not interested in figuring it out though because Clinton got millions more votes and Donald Trump is president anyway.
23 is exactly right. Comey and collusion with the Russians is in a different category than cleverly targeting the Rust Belt because the electoral college is racist.
The Russia stuff gives anti-Trump Republicans an in to try to take him down. You see McCain and Rubio and McCarthy and Chaffetz already maneuvering in this direction. If it turns out Sessions lied under oath (highly possible), that's a reason Democrats and some Republicans have to oust him without looking partisan.
24: You are determined to focus on the factors you can't change because you enjoy a life of frustration.
25: Fine, so prosecute everyone. No objections here! But no one should think doing so will unravel the social, legal, and constitutional conditions that got us here in the first place.
If a large number of factors are jointly responsible then they're not individually decisive, by definition.
I'm not sure that follows. You can have a lot of factors all of which were necessary for an event to happen, so they're jointly responsible, and each of them would be individually decisive in the sense that if they hadn't been there the event would not have happened.
28: And how the fuck can you do that without winning an election under the current system.
24
This is insane. It's been established that a hostile foreign power hacks into party intelligence, leaks it, shares it with the opposition, and conducts under-the-table dealings with top lawmakers, and you don't care because more Californians voted for Hillary? Even if she had won, it would still be a problem.
Secondly, the Russians aren't stupid. They know if they had to hack voting machines, they'd do it in swing states. Not CA or NY or places that 1) don't matter for the EC and 2) would be really obvious that they were hacked. Not saying there's any evidence it did happen, but noting that Hillary won CA by a landslide does not in anyway prove that they didn't, say, hack voting machines in WI.
27: Not frustrated at all. I live in Germany and have recently become eligible for permanent residence. This shit yall's problem, I'm just killing time at work.
Fine, so prosecute everyone. No objections here! But no one should think doing so will unravel the social, legal, and constitutional conditions that got us here in the first place.
This line stolen from the pilot episode of "Law & Order: Sociology of Government Unit".
32
Another option if you don't give a fuck is to not comment, and therefore avoid derailing what could be an interesting thread with trolling.
32: Eh, these are sincerely held positions and entirely on-topic.
I'm kind of in the same boat as ffeJ. Part of me thinks that anything that 'just' affects how people vote is, at some level, formally OK. Russia wants to buy ads on prime time TV supporting Trump? Go for it. So we, collectively, are morons who get what we deserve by listening to liars.
I think the interesting area for action here is what the IC and the administration of the moment can do to respond to this kind of event - it seems clear in hindsight that Obama didn't shout this from the rooftops because it would look like putting a thumb on the scale for Clinton, and that didn't seem like it was worthwhile.
37.1: But it is actually illegal for Russia to buy ads supporting Trump if they coordinate with Trump. How are you supposed get morons to vote for better candidates if you don't take the effort to highlight these kinds of violations?
It's the corrosive cynicism of 37 that will doom us all. People don't have some magical ability to tell truth from lies. If you can pump outrageous untruths or half-truths into the air, some people will inhale. If anything, the Achilles heel of our system is that it's so easy to lie and get away with it.
I understand that it is illegal for Russia to buy ads in collusion with Trump, but I don't know that I agree that that's right.
37.1
That sounds like completely giving up on the possibility of democratic governance or standards of truth or discourse. Let's just let any foreign power buy any ad space to say whatever they want for any purpose. I for one welcome our new RussianChinese Saudi overlords.
40: We have an ethical obligation to grant other countries influence in our elections?
40 is the best example of democrats not being willing to take their own side in a fight that I've ever seen.
42
It makes it easier for the Chinese to communicate their expectations directly to the worker for when they take us over manipulate our elections and get their puppet elected and use us for cheap sweatshop labor. They could also broadcast Mandarin lessons at the same time! Synergy!
42: On the basis of repricocity, sure. The US has been dicking around in everyone else's elections since the end of WWII, sometimes to a greater extent than anything alleged against the Russians.
46: I have an even more ingenious solution, the right size to fit in a margin.
46
Similarly, we also have an ethical obligation to let ISIS assassinate the president and install a friendly dictator.
48 is more succinct than the comment I was trying to write. I hate you, Buttercup.
32: If you think Germany is immune you're a fool.
Well, you pwn me and I pwn you, it's the natural circle of pwnage. *cue music*
48: it's not that we have an ethical obligation to let it happen, it's that we'd be hypocrites to complain if it did happen.
James Comey, and AFAIK no one is suggesting it's due to Russia ties
I am! I think Putin totally has the kompromat on Comey. That's why he did it.
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but the only way to put the issue to rest is with an independent investigation.
53
To scrupulously avoid hypocrisy, we should probably invade ourselves, wreck our infrastructure, spoil our crops, drone strike our large urban centers, and murder our intelligentsia.
I can feel my blood pressure going up reading 37 and 32.
Foreign intelligence agencies are a much much worse fate than disengaged idiotic americans who vote badly. FSB is not a more malicious version of Elon Musk or the Koch brothers or whatever deeply unpleasant domestic monster you can consider, different species of malice.
39 proves way too much. We don't have a Truth Department that preapproves campaign statements or ads for not being lies; campaigns already lie all the time. The only defense we have and have ever had is the ability to call them out as lies.
Y'all saying this isn't a big deal are crazy. There's evidence of collusion, there's evidence of policy changes directed by Russia (see the change to the Ukraine policy in the RNC platform directed by Trump's team). Did the Trump team coordinate Russian-backed trolling networks for fake news on FB? I want to know. Even if it doesn't reach the technical definition of "treason," I'd say that we're definitely in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" territory, which means impeachment and removal from office is on the table. I'd much rather get him on the Emoluments clause, but that's being buried by the Republicans--the foreign policy hawks and leftover Cold Warriors among the Rs will still likely feel likely they have to bite on collusion with a foreign power.
Trump is fucking dangerous. Pence is awful, but not a giant man-baby prone to wild mood swings and an urge to just go with his gut because he can't be bothered to be educated about something. I want Trump out as soon as possible, hopefully tarnishing the entire Republican brand all the way down to municipal dog catchers in Idaho.
I feel like we're now getting the Clintonite version of pro-Russian troll, a different variety from the "they're all the same" Bob-type troll we're used to seeing.
46 sure explains why so many people have fled US client states to settle in Russia. To spell this out further, apparently necessary, there has been a considerable flow the other direction.
I am familiar with some Chileans having fled to Europe. Not many to Russia for some reason.
I mean, step back a bit: if China interferes in Russia's 2018 elections, will everyone say "that's wrong of them!" or "welp, Russia sure had that coming." Because the US has been interfering in elections for decades.
62,63: You two have both utterly lost the plot.
61. Only 2 delusionally complacent commenters are saying nbd by my count.
I'm not saying it's not a big deal, or that it's not bad! I just think it's more in the realm of ordinary politics (which can still be plenty bad!).
65. I doubt it. Can you summarize the major plot developments you have managed to notice?
To be clear, I am 100% in favor of investigating, and impeaching and jailing Trump and everyone else involved.
67. Fair enough-- I disagree with you and can spell out why, but maybe that's not the best conversation to have.
51, 65: I don't remember ffeJ being this unpleasant previously. Must be moving to Germany that did it. A brutal nation.
So, I firmly believe that Russia influenced the election. I think this was reasonably clear in real time, during the campaign (the RNC-Ukraine business is a great example). And Trump won in spite of this being clear and out there. We're learning more details now, for interesting reasons, but it doesn't seem like it changes the basic story which was already pretty understandable on November 7.
I just think it's more in the realm of ordinary politics (which can still be plenty bad!).
It is actually illegal, though. Ordinary politics tends to confine itself to the legal.
I dreamt last night that I moved to Germany and became a German citizen, because Germans were so nice. Are you calling my subconscious a liar? That would mean that someday I'm really not going to marry Alison Brie, and I refuse to accept that.
America does indeed have it coming, and from the Russian point of view this is defensive: they believe (probably correctly) that if the current world order persists it will eventually swallow Russia, and the war they are currently pursuing is the only road they have to survival.
None of this implies in any way that Russian success is a good thing.
72: it is fucking incomprehensible that no one cared, but they didn't, and that doesn't un-hack the election.
they believe (probably correctly) that if the current world order persists it will eventually swallow Russia, and the war they are currently pursuing is the only road they have to survival.
What does this even mean? Swallow Russia?
I've seen this argument crop up on the Greenwald left. The USA has NSA and the NYTimes sucks, therefore American press is just as bad as Russian press. It's the height of self-complacent naivete and idiocy. There's a complete downplaying and willful denial of the difference between a shitty press and an unfree press. There's a refusal to acknowledge that Maureen Dowd =/= Putin jailing and murdering journalists who speak out against him.
Moreover, it's morally repulsive and dangerous because it justifies the worst atrocities our government does as business as usual. If routinely throwing elections is fine, then why should we be against it ever? If no one has fair elections, why shouldn't we do it here and abroad? Might makes right, and all that.
71: 51 was tongue in cheek, though I was a sincerely annoyed in 65.
72. I do not think this was clear and out there beyond the urban intelligentsia.
At the risk of derailing, in my mind the other major thread that is not normal is effective disenfranchisement, which certainly swung Wisconsin. I mention this only to say explicitly that I recognize the importance of domestic factors also.
72
No, it actually wasn't clear to most people. It was clear to us, because we read widely and pay attention. If you're a Fox News watcher, or even a standard evening news/local paper subscriber, it wasn't clear at all. And you're endorsing taking this ignorance bubble and upping it several orders of magnitude.
77
It means they might have to tolerate gays (etc.), have democracy, a free press, aspire to the rule of law, stop beating their wives and children, and so on.
A lot of Russians don't want to be civilized.
Entirely endorse 78: it's noticeable that this is exactly the line of argument the Russian state uses, and has used since the 50s if not earlier.
Was 46 tongue-in-cheek? Especially surprising coming from Germany.
82: fair enough, in that sense. If it's inherent to Russia's Russian-ness to be an intolerant, violent, militaristic autocracy, and certainly that's a popular belief in Russia which I suppose makes it more or less true by definition, then I suppose they are right to be afraid for Russia's future in the face of what's going on elsewhere.
I'm not interested in figuring out how much the Comey or Russia stuff influenced it; I suspect very little, but whatever.
On Comey you're completely, demonstrably wrong*, but you're making it super-clear, in this thread and previous ones, that your main interest is in holding the position of the wise cynic, shaking his head condescendingly at anyone who thinks norms matter. "The whole system is out of order, man."
*but for Comey, HRC wins by 6M votes and 70+ EVs
77: AFAIK they are afraid of something like the Color Revolutions (which they assume to have been directed by American intelligence) happening in Russia. So they're fighting to make the world safe for atavistic xenophobic kleptocracies. "Swallow" is a shitty phrasing*, but I think they see it that way, as slow motion invasion and conquest by means short of outright war.
*Which I used to avoid writing a long comment like this one. Stitch in, etc.
85: It was a bit, yes. I don't genuinely believe there's a moral obligation for the US to allow foreign governments to take part in its elections, but given past and current US policy it's also not undeserved.
And why would it be surprising coming from Germany? I haven't polled anyone, but I'm guessing my position on that would be completely mainstream here.
84
Yeah, it's a standard of evil dictators everywhere. The US and Western democracies do it too, therefore it's totally acceptable.
I'm kind of with Nathan/ffeJ here, in that I don't really think it should be illegal for foreign entities to run campaign ads, at least on the same terms as domestic entities. Maybe this is the citizen of the world in me speaking, but why shouldn't foreigners be allowed to try to persuade Americans (or Brits) to vote in a certain way, provided they do it through legit channels? I get why the government of the time might be pissed off about it, but a) that's a matter for the diplomats, and b) we don't hold elections to satisfy the desires of the present government.
My theory is, most Americans are complacent in thinking that "America is the best! Our founding fathers were the smartest! Our country has the best rules! We all (mostly) follow the rules, so no individual infraction is a very big deal, and the system is so well-designed that it is indestructible."*
But now we have the guys who make the rules, and the guys who enforce the rules, breaking the rules and erasing rules and making new rules. And they don't care about the old rules at all. They're not trying to win, within the system, they're trying to destroy the system. But so far that looks the same, from the outside, as when people before have tried to win in the system and broke some rules doing it, which is easy to ignore in a "fouls are part of the game" way.
So I guess we'll find out if it's really indestructible, anyway.
*The voice of the complacent American changed a little in tone, there, huh.
I didn't even read the rank stupidity of 46 before posting 87. Do you really not understand that poetic justice is not actual justice, and that your self-satisfied chortling about pigeons coming home to roost is going to kill many people, all around the world, and maybe even include a nuclear exchange?
Contemptible.
91: I basically agree, but I also basically agree with world peace and universal basic income. In the world as is, making that work isn't feasible.
88
Sure, from the Russian POV it's not unjustified, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. The Nazis were also justified in thinking we wanted to "swallow" the Third Reich; we were indeed an existential threat to their regime.
Not frustrated at all. I live in Germany and have recently become eligible for permanent residence. This shit yall's problem, I'm just killing time at work
ffeJ, please do not comment in this thread. Thanks.
I would also like to maintain the position that when the US has intervened in other countries' elections and governments, that was very, very wrong and bad, and we should not have done it, and we should not do it again.
By which standard it would be weird to let other countries help out with ours.
Maybe we could do a system where, if we staged a coup in your country, or assassinated your president, or whatever, then you get to pick an election here and meddle with it however you want. Fair's fair.
But Russia's not in that picture, as far as I know, and also that system is totally batshit bonkers.
I think 100.3 is the JFK assassination, actually.
And Trump won in spite of this being clear and out there.
I know people have already pointed out that this is only true if the electorate consists entirely of people as politically-engaged as the commenters here, but I want to emphasize that it's utter nonsense in terms of what was understood by the actual American people. You've seen these word clouds, right? Look at how much people heard or read about Russian ties to Trump. TBH, it's even tinier than I'd have guessed, but it was not remotely "clear and out there".
This is madness.
I assume Mossy's original point is that Russia will intervene in Germany's election. There's lots of speculation that Russia is intervening in the French election right now.
98
Yeah, fair enough. I guess my issue is that none of us are mad at the Russians for trying to meddle, I think we all accept that Russia's gonna try to ratfuck what Russia's gonna try to ratfuck. We're upset because we don't think Americans should have let them succeed, nor should they be complacent about their success.
I mean, Putin being Putin is inevitable. Comey being bought/blackmailed by Putin to try to throw the election, or Assange publishing hacked emails are not, and consequences for treason or other illegal behavior should be enforced.
102: re the attempts on Castro, to be clear.
104: Yes; but even if it doesn't, or does and fails, Germany is not immune to the shitshow of Trump; no one can run far enough to get away from America. Not to mention Russia, you know, invading countries in Eastern Europe.
104: No doubt they are in both cases, but I'm not worried about it because neither country has the electoral college.
104: Also the idea that Trump is only America's problem.
Seriously, ffeJ, please don't comment in this thread.
Thanks,
A front page poster
107: The rapidly solidifying position of German policy makers seems to be that Europe can no longer count on the US in matter of security or trade, and that the EU now has to strike off as an independent power.
Germany is incredibly dependent on Russia for oil and on its own has a fraction of the military capacity. Russia can majorly fuck with Germany in ways it can't really to the US. The Germans I know are very, very worried.
111
I tried that earlier and it didn't work.
34, 44, 50, 94, and 99 get it exactly right.
Yes, I've seen the word clouds, and yes, they're terrible. And that's entirely a function of domestic media. So when I mean "out there", I do mean to people paying attention, which definitely includes, say, Dean Baquet.
I think you guys are being ridiculous, but if I'm out of this thread, I'm out of all of them from now on. It's been real, and I wish you all the best.
112, see 113. Even the whole EU acting in strongly co-ordinated fashion (ha ha, pull the other one) is far more vulnerable to Russia than the US, and Europe without the Atlantic alliance is worse off in every way. That said, 112 is good news.
For the record, I am strongly opposed to the exile of ffeJ, self-imposed or otherwise.
116
Right, but you're also saying you're not only ok with that, you're in favor of making it worse. Basically, if you're in support of Russia buying advertising, you're advocating 4chan and return of kings (google at your own risk) taking over advertising on mainstream media.
Back to the OP, the media has the same problem reporting on Russia's pwning of the US government as they do reporting typical Republican policy. Honest and accurate reporting would describe the GOP as evil, which would be rude.
if I'm out of this thread
You are out of this thread.
Why aren't we going on O against Russia? Why aren't we making topical telenovelas about a pleasant lifestyle in a middle class democracy with characters that Russians would like? Why not another one about gorgeous Slavic rebels against a strongman? And the other one about gorgeous Slavic servants in the house of an oil oligarch? And putting up our own satellite to be sure they can't be blocked. And pulp novels and graphic novels with similar themes? And dropping unblocked iPhones from helicopters over Russia? Where's our goddamn offense?
105: none of us are mad at the Russians for trying to meddle, I think we all accept that Russia's gonna try to ratfuck what Russia's gonna try to ratfuck
YMMV. I am mad at them, because what they're doing is insanely dangerous. Russia ratfucking in Ukraine is BAU (though it shouldn't be); Russia ratfucking in DC is one stop away from nuclear war. And it isn't just this one thing they've done. Crimea? Territory in Europe annexed by foreign invasion. That hadn't happened since 1945.
That said, 32, 40 et al are just circus music nutso. A) To my knowledge, no country in the world welcomes or allows foreign intervention in its domestic politics. B) Given that the US is no exception, such interventions introduce a bias towards treasonous sociopaths. C) Even if it were, the substance of the principal such intervention was gleaned from criminal acts. D) Even if it didn't, Russia's actions amounted to a massive undeclared in-kind campaign contribution, itself illegal.
125
Oh, I agree that Russia is being evil and dangerous and wrong and we should oppose their actions as much as possible without escalating into actual war. I guess I'm not mad because I didn't expect otherwise from Putin. I did expect otherwise from the head of our FBI.
Banishing people has its costs. We'll never get to see mcmanus go ballistic over that report about Michelle Obama and George W. Bush being friends, which would have given me some schadenfreude.
I don't know if the Twitter thread in the OP is overly optimistic or not, but I think it's a safe bet that we're still depressingly far from a tipping point.
61- Surely a place like Idaho has long since privatized the position of dog catcher?
I did expect otherwise from the head of our FBI.
I also have a vast reservoir of anger at the press for dancing so dutifully to that tune.
Also, Loretta Lynch for not kicking up a giant fuss immediately.
It's an interesting thing to parse emotion. I strongly dislike Russia (it's probably the place I dislike most in the world), but I feel like anger has to have an emotional immediacy that I can't muster. Betrayal brings it about, but I guess I don't feel betrayed by Russia because I didn't expect them to behave better?
Anyways, it's probably meaningless parsing of very similar attitudes and emotions.
133
Yeah, I think maybe I'm maddest at the press, because I actively expected them not to be this awful.
132
Yeah completely.
On the Twitter thread, it does seem like there's a ton of visible smoke*. The question, as with the election, is whether the press will actually care that there's apparently a fire (BURNING DOWN OUR COUNTRY). As long as Ryan et al can speak to the press and get asked about things other than Russia, it will be business as usual. But if every public appearance by a GOP politician involves Sam Donaldson-like shouts of, "But what about the Russia investigation!?", then they'll start to do something, because they can't actually take that heat.
*I mean, we know there's a fire, but I must say that the rapidity of increase in smoke suggests that the (non-pejorative) conspiracy theorists are basically right. Like, not just wink-wink mutual support, but actual coordination of the sort that is literally illegal between campaigns and PACs, let alone foreign governments.
Guys, have you considered how awkward this whole thing is for the press? They've been politely ignoring the GOP's escalating criminality for decades. Expecting them to jump straight to speculating about treason without any hint of partisan equvalence is asking a lot.
I know what you mean about anger, though. In the run-up to the Iraq War, I was sort of generally horrified at everything. But I was differently personally furious at Colin Powell, because he's a guy from the Bronx who seems generally reasonable, and from him I (okay, yes, insanely, I know he got his start defending My Lai) I expected better.
128: Comity.
Fuck that guy.
Wait, nevermind.
138: That was funny, and now I want to break something.
134: Do you mean immediately after the late Oct letter, or at another point?
BTW, the real key to recalling how evil Comey was is that he lied to the NYT about the status of the Russia investigation even as he fanned the email flames. The latter can be understood in terms of internal pressure*, but in concert with the latter, it's straight-up ratfuckery.
*basically the NY bureau saying "we'll go public if you don't". That's on him for even being in that position, but there's a set of facts where his release of that letter isn't malice aforethought. Lying about the Russian stuff can't be spun that way.
Yeah, I think maybe I'm maddest at the press, because I actively expected them not to be this awful.
I'm not exactly unsurprised, but "the US press is broken" has been my baseline assumption since 2003, so.... As Yggles says a lot, the expectation of an easy Clinton win caused them to indulge their worst instincts thinking it would be consequence-free. But that's no excuse for their reaction to the speech the other night, which was straight-up insane. There really is a pathology in our press.
Immediately after the late October letter. The NY bureau 'goes public'? His job is to immediately discipline them and make a public statement that they have no reason to believe there's anything interesting in the emails. Which would have been absolutely true, and required by Justice Department policy.
And Lynch should have been on him immediately for not doing that.
I feel like, if we had a sane president instead of an insane Russian puppet, it wold make sense for the US and China to work together to contain Russia. The threat of nuclear war could be on the table if Russia would rather take everyone out while going down in ruins, but I think Putin has too much self preservation and dreams of rebuilding the Great Slavic Empire to do that.
I know we have different interests foreign policy-wise with China, but both countries have an interest in maintaining general global peace and stability, and our economies are intertwined enough that what's good for the US economically is good for China. Also, the Chinese leadership is not insane and able to think long-term (even if it's just for self-preservation), which is a rarity among super powers these days.
143: I've heard an interesting point about that -- that there is a difference between the journalists and the commentators. It's the commentators that shit the bed the other night.
139: I was disappointed with Powell for violating his own doctrine. As for actual emotion, I can't say I'm literally angry about any of this. Low-key horrified, more like.
FWIW, my read of the thread is that ffeJ was being a bit of an ass and, also, people were talking past each other. I feel like ffeJ was answer a different question than what was bother other people (but the two are close enough that I couldn't easily figure out a way to phrase the difference).
I also suspect that the miscommunication was caused by the fact that ffeJ felt like the problems that everybody else was worried about weren't that interesting and was mentally doing a substitution of, "you guys are barking up the wrong tree; once you get to the correct issue the answer will be X" without explicitly making the case. But again, that's my read of the thread dynamics without having tried to look at it closely enough to figure out exactly what was going on.
Comey's letter was a good justification for Obama to set aside his worries about interfering in the election and inform the public.
But I was differently personally furious at Colin Powell, because he's a guy from the Bronx who seems generally reasonable, and from him I (okay, yes, insanely, I know he got his start defending My Lai) I expected better.
When Little Kitty (RIP) used to get on the table, I'd shoo him off. But when Big Kitty (RIP) used to get on the table, I used to scold him by saying, "I'd expect this kind of behavior from your brother, but not from you!" He knew better.
I expected more establishment Republicans to stand tall. I'm very disappointed in them- they did not live up to their potential or make good choices at ALL. They're behaving very badly.
(I wrote that in a silly way but it's actually true)
BTW, the real key to recalling how evil Comey was is that he lied to the NYT about the status of the Russia investigation even as he fanned the email flames. The latter can be understood in terms of internal pressure*, but in concert with the latter, it's straight-up ratfuckery.
This can't be said enough, but will actually be soon lost to the gnat-like attention span of the ether.
On selective anger and things that won't be undone no matter what happens next: I was fairly calmly thinking about fitting punishments in Tartaros for that guy in Kansas who shot the Indian engineers, in the usual grimly compartmentalized mode; then, when I opened my mouth to mention a few aloud, I began shaking with fury and had to shut up in a hurry.
Although from the point of view of Justice Department rules, he should have been keeping his mouth shut about both of them.
I'm kind of in the same boat as ffeJ. Part of me thinks that anything that 'just' affects how people vote is, at some level, formally OK. Russia wants to buy ads on prime time TV supporting Trump? Go for it.
I have thought this way on occasion, so I think I can hazard a guess about where you're going wrong.
If, like me, you're somebody who like to be able to work things out from first principles, it's hard to figure out a principled approach to campaign finance / law. There are a couple of familiar intuitions which work at cross purposes. The first is the idea that, "the solution to free speech is more free speech." It's fairly easy to think that, as long as people have a stake in the election, it's better to have them producing material which is clearly marked as political ads, and to let people sort it out.
The second is that, as long as you think that campaign materials, per se, serve a legitimate purpose then something like the Millian Harm Principle would argue against preventing people from supporting a campaign.
Finally, in any attempt to restrict campaigns (including contributions or third-party involvement in a campaign) Sorites paradoxes will abound. For anything that is being restricted it's easy to find some element of, "[y] isn't being restricted but it's clearly on a continuum with [x], and there isn't an easy bright line distinction."
That said, I think campaign law is valuable, and is better treated as something based on practical experience and wisdom rather than derived from first principles.
According to some crazy guy on Twitter:
He was not part of trump's campaign when he met with the Russian ambassador. Very routine. He also met with over 20 other ambassadors in this capacity.
This McCarthyist witch hunt is a stupid distraction. It is fake news built on lies and deliberate misleading of the public.
Sessions is one of the names that triggers the Dems the most. It's almost as if they know that he knows something about them that he could formally investigate in the AG role...
Thank God that very few people are still stupid enough to believe the legacy media.
So for at least some of the people, part of the problem is that their guys have been playing dirty for so long they can't believe the other guys wouldn't be.
Sessions is one of the names that triggers the Dems the most. It's almost as if they know that he knows something about them that he could formally investigate in the AG role...
The whole thing is dumb, but this particular line is really impressive.
153 cont'd: So I think it's specifically a vast untapped reservoir of anger, with the occasional terrifying leak. ffeJ may have run afoul of this phenomenon just now with Standpipe.
(Hey, E. Messily, good to hear from you! Have you been around less lately or is it just me? It is partially just me, for sure.)
145: I don't know enough, but I doubt that would work, even with a sane president. AFAIK China really is dedicated to the effective hegemonization of at least most of East Asia, and the US fundamentally is opposed to that (while probably not caring enough to prevent it, but enough to prevent effective alliance). The One Belt One Road policy (again, don't know enough) also leans heavily into westward Eurasian integration that doesn't really work without Russia. Also, they're still buying in most of their advanced weapons from Russia, and Russian pipelines + Russian nukes make up their only oil supply that isn't vulnerable to American blockade.
Asking whether "hacking the election" literally happened requires parsing whether hacking applies to things other than computer systems or wood with an ax, and whether the election is just Election Day or the whole political show leading up to it. It's entirely subjective! We're in Alice in Wonderland territory here! But what Russia did vis à vis the election is definitely bad and not business as usual. You have to find examples from 30+ years ago to justify it, or just make up hypotheticals that are missing all the important parts of what actually happened.
But just be clear, I definitely agree with 119 and disagree with 99 et al. ffeJ is wrong here but I've been a lot dumber, over more personally offensive topics, and only sat out the rest of the thread, not left for good. This is really not ban-worthy or even self-exile.
I feel like lots of people tolerated lots of awful things because they thought a Clinton victory was inevitable. Maybe we should be most angry at people who predicted a Clinton shoo-in (I'm looking at you, Sam Wang).
So, I firmly believe that Russia influenced the election. I think this was reasonably clear in real time, during the campaign (the RNC-Ukraine business is a great example). And Trump won in spite of this being clear and out there. We're learning more details now, for interesting reasons, but it doesn't seem like it changes the basic story which was already pretty understandable on November 7.
I agree with everyone else that this was hardly common knowledge, and I'd make the argument that this is a case where it makes a lot of sense that people are going to go along with their political tribes.
My basic reaction since the election has been the same as Messily's, "[establishment Republicans] did not live up to their potential or make good choices at ALL" (see also Quiggan's CT post on the topic). But, in having that reaction, I've spent some time thinking about the question of, "what would it take for me to clearly separate myself from the general tribe of leftist/democratic/progressives and say, 'I can't go along with you this election'?" And, while I do think that Republicans should have made that choice, I recognize that it isn't easy.
In the case of the Trump/Russia ties I think about my own reaction to the many allegations about the Clinton foundation, and my first reaction was, essentially, to think, "do I see anybody on the left freaking out about this? If not, I may chose to investigate for myself but I'm going to proceed on the assumption that the charge is probably bullshit." A completely legitimate heuristic considering that there were a lot of bullshit accusations about the Clinton foundation. But I can understand how somebody on the Right would have the same thought process about Trump/Russia -- check to see if Fox or right-wing blogs are making a big deal out of it and, if they aren't not worry about the whole thing.
161.2
I don't think it was the wrongheadedness that was irritating, it was openly admitting to trolling for shits and giggles. Also, I mean, I can have a personal preference, but it's not my blog and anyone can comment whenever and wherever they want. If people want to interpret a request to not blatantly troll this thread as a request to never comment here again, that's on them.
Man, I was hoping for more arguments about why the lazy Clinton campaign didn't do a better job hardening itself against state actors than the Iranian nuclear program.
165.last gets it right. 99 was basically, "You're being an asshole, shut up", which is something that needs to be said on the internet sometimes. Lots of ways to handle that from there.
Wait, are you telling me that Rouhani used a private email server? #ImpeachHassan
OT: I cannot believe Biden's son is dating Beau's widow.
I suppose there's a joke here about party unity.
I'm most angry at Republicans who didn't vote for Trump in the primary for good reasons but voted for him in the general anyway and have supported him since then. That's a very inchoate group to be angry at, but I'm not a very angry person FWIW. I'm pretty sure my wife is most angry at Republicans in Congress. (And her co-workers, for reasons entirely unrelated to this except that they both make her workday miserable.)
170- That's a biblical exhortation, isn't it?
What does this even mean? Swallow Russia?
Russia's big. You'll have to unhinge your jaw.
An area in which Nazis and others have made poor choices of totem animal.
Still catching up on this thread but what do people think the odds are of Sessions:
1) Recusing himself
2) Resigning
Or some third possibility.
So far this seems to be following the pattern with Flynn.
Personally I think Sessions has got to go (and that the racist motherfucker should never have been confirmed in the first place.)
One good result that has become clear is that the newspapers are just going to keep digging at this. I have a feeling there is a lot more to uncover.
I'm most angry at Republicans who didn't vote for Trump in the primary for good reasons but voted for him in the general anyway and have supported him since then. That's a very inchoate group to be angry at, but I'm not a very angry person FWIW.
The thing is, if the Democrats nominated someone as grotesque as Trump, I'd vote for him, because at the end of the day, it's policy that matters and I prefer the Democrat trainwreck to the milquiest of Republican milquetoast.
And they're right: mostly what they're getting is a lot of shitty, circa-Republican-style incoherent policy, with a dash of nuclear war thrown in. It's probably much closer to their liking than Clinton's agenda would have been. And if he gets impeached, then they've got their cake.
176
I would say resigning is probably a higher possibility than Sessions recusing himself, but I'm completely making that up.
I do hope this can be an avenue for cold war Republicans to find a spine and meaningfully oppose Trump. It looks like there could be rumblings in that direction, but it's too early to tell, really. Chaffetz and McCarthy calling for Sessions to recuse himself is a good sign.
I've been a lot dumber, over more personally offensive topics
Noted!
Personally I think Sessions has got to go (and that the racist motherfucker should never have been confirmed in the first place.)
I saw a funny tweet, "Sessions has lost all credibility. Can we really trust that he's still even racist?"
177
I feel like the open supreme court seat also played a key role. People who otherwise hate him can tolerate 4 years of Trump's buffoonery if it means they get 30+ years of conservative influence through the Supreme Court.
The switch in time that saved The Nein.
BTW, the real key to recalling how evil Comey was is that he lied to the NYT about the status of the Russia investigation even as he fanned the email flames. The latter can be understood in terms of internal pressure*, but in concert with the latter, it's straight-up ratfuckery.
Just going to print this out and tape it to the fucking wall. Maybe mail it to a few dozen fucking newsrooms and congressional offices while I'm at it too.
I am not at all an angry person, and do a lot to avoid angry people in person. That said, I have spent the past few months absolutely furious at Trump voters, to the extent that I'm picking fights on other people's walls at the other place--I haven't even done this on my own wall in the past--and trying not to spend all my time cursing.
I'm an angry person. I'm trying to avoiding picking fights so I don't call my one cousin a shithead or something.
Trump says he has "total" confidence in Sessions. Sessions is doomed.
totally off topic: I just got a call from an 855 number. I didn't answer, because I'm sick and also usually don't. But I googled it, like I always do, in case I should call back. It was a Social Security program, who had set up a website with the title "Did you receive a call from [number]? and then explained who they are and what the phone call was for, and what information was in it, and what number you can call or website you can visit, if you're interested.
Genius! Why doesn't everyone do this!
It's a high point in a below average week anyway
It's pretty hard to believe that their conversation on Sept 8 didn't touch on the subject of the Washington Post story of Sept 5. Any Republican senators who want to save the guy's job ought to step forward right now and say they met the ambassador as well that day, and it was about soybeans or something.
The only thing that can hurt them with the voters if a dead soybean or a live lima bean.
Since this is the thread for cheery news, Sweden is going to reintroduce conscription this summer. From the article:
"The defence minister said the move was in response to a deteriorating security environment in Europe. "We are in a context where Russia has annexed Crimea," Peter Hultqvist, the minister, told AFP. "They are doing more exercises in our immediate vicinity.""
In hindsight, the Republicans have been signalling their willingness to break rules for Quite a While. I don't know why I thought there would be a line they wouldn't cross.
Or not rules, exactly, but entrenched tradition. Which, apparently, was previously the glue holding this whole thing together
I'm watching the West Wing for escapism and I just got to where they have a fight about reinstating the draft. I don't know what I think about this topic.
I think there should be a meta-Selective Service where people have to register to a draft of a debate about reinstating the draft.
173: I thought that was only if the first brother didn't have any kids.
Holy shit did anyone else watch that press conference?
He's recusing himself from investigations of Russian involvement in the campaign (which is good) and then basically he admitted he didn't forget that he met with that diplomat, he just fucking lied to Al Franken about not having met with anyone because it was politically expedient.
I think better than a draft is paying soldiers enough such that you don't have to resort to conscription to have a big enough army.
Further to 196: It's called a "Levi's marriage." Because the grooms share the same jeans.
187: Yes, if Trump has total confidence in you, that means he knows that even if he fires you, you won't squeal.
I mean I would have to go back and watch it but he said at first he didn't remember and then later said he remembered but was trying to speak to the allegations of "constant contact" between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Which sounds like him saying he remembered but it wasn't politically expedient to talk about, so he said no. Which would be lying.
I mean is this guy just a terrible lawyer? Seems like it wouldn't be too hard legally to hold that you just forgot, but admitted that you didn't could be used against you in investigations, right?
I mean I would have to go back and watch it but he said at first he didn't remember and then later said he remembered but was trying to speak to the allegations of "constant contact" between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Which sounds like him saying he remembered but it wasn't politically expedient to talk about, so he said no. Which would be lying.
I mean is this guy just a terrible lawyer? Seems like it wouldn't be too hard legally to hold that you just forgot, but admitted that you didn't could be used against you in investigations, right?
Speaking of no bar too low, I am enjoying in a twisted, bitter way the lengths the National Review will go to to justify the actions of someone who just a few months ago they claimed was a dangerous, incompetent fascist.
204, 205: I don't think that's what he was saying. His excuse was that he understood Franken to be asking about contacts with Russia on behalf of or about the campaign, which he still claims not to have had. That's not what Franken asked--Franken asked what he would do "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign"--but I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility in the broader context to understand the question the way Sessions claims to have understood it. The problem with that, though, is that his answer didn't reflect that understanding, he just said unequivocally that he "did not have communications with the Russians." And smirked that punchable smirk the entire time. (Why do so many of these guys have permanent punchable smirks?)
draft: the argument for is that if fancy people's kids are in the military, the fancy people might make different decisions.
When Trump appointed Sessions I consoled myself with the possibility that Trump's administration would be so tumultuous and scandal-ridden that he would either be fired or forced to resign at some point, thus putting an early end to the career of probably the most racist senator of our era. I figure this is probably what a lot of conservative Never Trumpers were afraid of: that a Trump admin would mean mainline party infrastructure making nice with him and then self-destructing alongside him in a way that would hollow out party infrastructure for a decade. In other words, if you're a conservative, Trump as candidate is bad, Clinton as President is bad, but Trump as President is a machine that shreds Republican careers and credibility and while it's possible to distance oneself from a candidate from your party, it is almost impossible to distance oneself from a President from your party.
Anyway I hope he takes down as many horrid and destructive careers as possible with him as he can without positively wrecking the country irreparably.
170: Deceased wife's sister! (Deceased husbands brother became legal a few decades later IIRC.) Next: hunting vicars.
Republicans have a history of dealing with our "official enemies" to manipulate elections. Vietnam, Iran, they have not paid an electoral price yet.
209 is so optimistic. I like that.
Draft: if we're in a shooting war everyone should be liable to the draft. If the military doesn't want you in Basic they get a big fat slice off your income.
an early end to the career of probably the most racist senator of our era.
He was in the Senate for 20 years?
For a Thurmond-grade racist that's nothing.
I've only read to 100 or so, but 93 gets it exactly right.
213
He probably had at least a decade to go
213
He probably had at least a decade to go
most racist senator of our era
I guess Jesse Helms is officially of a bygone era. Perhaps long bygone? Christ I feel old.
I think I agree with basically everything Buttercup has said in this thread.
I agree with everything Von Wafer said in this thread.
207 I think it makes sense if there is an instinct for what makes a smirk punchable that is responding to a real attitude people have.
I'm not going to claim that Russia isn't a bad actor generally, but I feel like people here are exonerating the US for its bad behavior. Lots of people thought HRC was liable to provoke a nuclear war by shooting down Russian planes over Syria. I argued that Trump's unstable personality was the greater risk, but I don't think it makes sense to blind ourselves to the ways we provoke Russia.
You didn't see a lot of that on facebook? I sure did.
All the fucknuts I know on Facebook were opposed to Clinton because she was liberal and a woman, not a warmongerer.
We actively work to hurt Russian interests constantly, they had an opprotunity to help out a more friendly presidental candidate and they took it, it would of been idiotic for them not to. If Putin ever gave us the same opprotunity we would take it. People are just mad because it worked, and they are going to get away with it.
Sure sure. States spy on each other and worse. But when spies are caught they get shot (sometimes). It isn't, officially, better luck next time old chap. Espionage, sabotage, and dirty tricks are nefarious. I don't expect that the British or Russian or Indonesian government is going to apologize. I do expect the American government not to go along with it or be suborned by it.
223
Thanks!
I also agree with 230.
I don't approve of meddling generally, but especially don't approve when I'm the victim of it.
Isn't calling this hypocrisy a form of concern trolling?
Great, now you've set us up for another 300 comments.
I'm waiting for another 300 comments before I decide what to say about 231.
I'm glad saying what teo just said helps get us further down the thread.
This probably means I'll have to read the past hundred comments or so just to catch up, which I'm not enthusiastic about, to have things to react to. But, you know, priorities.
It's pretty hard to believe that their conversation on Sept 8 didn't touch on the subject of the Washington Post story of Sept 5.
Remind me what the September 5 story in the WP was.
|| Update on this case
The story so far: My old school friend Disraeli, who has lived for decades as a recluse, has finally been lured onto the internet by an ancient smartphone poisoned with a smear of powerful nerve toxin: Youtube.
He refuses angrily any suggestion that he get a laptop -- "I've never used a computer in my life and I'm not going to start now" -- but after three months complains that the screen of a Nexus 4 is too small to watch videos on; that he can't type on it properly; and that he has used it so much that the battery has swollen and pushed off the back of the case. So now, afraid of explosions, he is storing it in the bathtub when it is not in use.
I do not tell him that the firefox instance I had left on the phone is still, unknown to either of us, syncing its browsing history to the only other instance of firefox I use, the one on my desktop in the office, which shows all the explorations you would expect being made -- fortunately -- around midnight, when I am demonstrably not at that keyboard. But thanks a bundle, Ben, anyway. I desync the accounts hurriedly at this discovery and nuke the history db.
I suggest that he catch a bus across the country to visit the second hand computer shops here with me. He says this is impossible because of his weak bladder. I suggest, then, that he buy a tablet. He says he can't learn anything new at his age, so can't work ebay. I tell him to send me a cheque and I'll get him a tablet. He does. I buy a Nexus 9 (because he says he can't learn anything new like the IoS interface) with a keyboard.
I have put on it shortcuts to metafilter, a bunch of music subreddits, xkcd, email, a calendar (this is a cruel joke, but still), some shared Google photos. Not, after some thought, to here.
Today I will drive over and deliver it. What have I forgotten?
Where's double posting when you need it?
he has used it so much that the battery has swollen and pushed off the back of the case. So now, afraid of explosions, he is storing it in the bathtub when it is not in use.
Good heavens.
242:Dispose of that battery properly. Li battery degradation is no joke.
That battery is frightening. Please follow fm's advice.
So in a moment of idle googling almost instantly regretted I came across my parent's (father's, really) Twitter. It's full-out Trumpist with support of Sessions throughout this scandal. And a lot of shit about MS-13 killings on LI. Ugh. I really don't want to go back to NY for leave this summer.
||
In case anyone's lurking with bated breath, the TF&S reading group has officially expired by email.
|>
Shame. I was vicariously enjoying it.
You were vicariously kind of uninspired and disinterested? Because that was the feeling among the posters.
249 This sort of thing? http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/the-dirty-secret-behind-the-jeff-sessions-mess
253 links to perhaps the stupidest possible take I've yet to read on this subject. We can discard the possibility that Sessions colluded with Russia because he met with the ambassador in his office? Really? We are to discard the possibilities that Sessions is either stupid enough or arrogant enough to think we can get away with it? Bear in mind, of course, there's better than even odds that he will.
You see that all the time -- the "he couldn't possibly be that stupid" defense. To a first approximation, it's always wrong.
As (gensym) says, it's wrong because people get away with all kinds of obvious stuff. It's also wrong because people are stupid. And -- as in many cases -- it's totally wrong in this case because the smart move, if you're trying to collude with the Russians, is to do it under the cover of legit business.
With all of that said, I've got a soft spot for the general sort of analysis in the link in 253. People do all kinds of dumb shit that only looks dumb in slow motion on instant replay. If I thought that the Trump campaign hadn't been colluding with the Russians, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Sessions' claim that he basically misunderstood the context of the question.
I hope that the investigation leads to the release of Trump's tax returns. I'm willing to bet that not only is he nowhere near as rich as he claims (he's not a bilionaire and his wealth is about what it would have been if he'd invested his inheritance in the S&P 500), but also there are all manner of shady ties to Russian oligarchs.
"Oh, we thought you were asking about a different 'Adolf'".
254: to perhaps the stupidest possible take I've yet to read on this subject.
My current favorite is where they are triumphantly pointing out that the Russian ambassador visited the White House 22 times during Obama's two terms. So there!
I should have known the event in 259 would happen, but the stupidity of it is killing me.
Conservatives are so in love with to quoque arguments that if you caught one of them breaking into your house and stripped naked with your baby, they'd point out that you, too, have been naked with your baby.
Possibly that's a bad analogy.
254: I mean, next you'll be telling me that a serving US president would conspire to perform illegal activities in the Oval Office, where he knew there was a tape recorder running all the time.
Speaking of leftists with weird priorities, apparently the guy just arrested for some of the JCC bomb threats was a guy the Intercept fired for making up sources last year?
This continues to be the craziest fucking thing ever, that Russians successfully completing a five year plan to hijack a presidential election gets reported as uninteresting wonkery that the ordinary Joe wouldn't care about.
???
AFAICS the Russia story almost completely displaced "Presidential Trump" across every major media outlet when the Sessions revelations dropped. How is it not being reported as something interesting?
254.last: If I had to bet, I'd guess that Sessions will ultimately be caused to step down. I wonder if there's a betting market where I can put a few bucks on him failing to make it to the end of 2017 as AG.
266: Paddy Power has the odds on precisely that at 4/6.
264: I don't suppose I want to know about how Breitbart is playing this revelation.
The JCC guy... wow, time-lapse footage of sociopathy makes one marvel at the power of nature. Act One via Gawker, so kind of an ouroboros effect.
My guess is that Breitbart has greatly minimized the part of the story where this dude wasn't responsible for most of the threats.
My guess is that Breitbartall media has greatly minimized the part of the story where this dude wasn't responsible for most of the threats.
The MSM headlines are basically "Lefty journalist admits to JCC bomb threats." That this [misogynist, because of course*] asshole accounted for
*I mean, isn't the headline still "internet misogynists responsible for 100% of JCC bomb threats"?
Ack, what happened there? Oh, I see. FU, HTML parsing.
... less than 10% of JCC bomb threats is excised from the story, as if finding out that 1 of the Ted Bundy's alleged victims was killed by someone else exonerated him.
The codes for the less-than < and greater-than > signs are, respectively, & l t ; and & g t ; without the internal spaces.
CNN had a long bit about the JCC case that heavily emphasized the fact that this was 8 cases out of 20 times that many.
Did you invite know that colon cancer screening can do be done by shitting in a box and mailing it to the correct address?
If you mail it to enough random addresses, eventually you will get the correct one.
If you shit in enough boxes you won't even have to mail it.
If enough people shit it boxes and mail them in, the test will be very non-specific unless the boxes are lined with plastic.
Anyway, whatever the reason for shitting in boxes, running ads for it during Family Feud reruns is obvious marketing.
Well obviously they shouldn't all shit in the same boxes. Sheesh.
My current Sessions theory, based on nothing, is that the Amb was feeling out whether he'd be a good conduit to Trump, and decided he wasn't.
That doesn't explain why Sessions felt the need to hide the meetings during his hearings. If you're going to cover something up, it's probably only worth doing if you're hiding something worth the risk. (Of course, stupidity and arrogance are still valid explanations.)
If enough people shit it boxes and mail them in, the test will be very non-specific
They've really changed the SAT since I took them...
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7690049/emails.png){kind=link}