US Election Thread 2016

[Jairzinho]

I agree there's less public appetite for military action abroad, but I don't think that was a factor here. Even if the American public had been up for damaging or toppling Assad the US still wouldn't have gone all in on it, because sooner or later they'd have found themselves fighting Russia. See my hypothetical from my previous post - the Russian public aren't averse to sending in the troops, but Russia would never do it to topple the Saudi regime as they know they'd be starting WW3.

 

I'm not sure about this. There seems to have been something of whoever was willing to make the first move. If the US had been more decisive earlier, I'm not convinced Russia would have played as big a role in the conflict. I think Putin just pounced on the US' dithering.

[VladimirIlyich]

It is hard not to be impressed with Russia and Putin at the moment, they are winning bigly indeed. This decision not to react to diplomats expulsion is particularly brilliant, it makes the outgoing administration look like dicks, even though it was Russia who interfered in another county's elections. Americans must be furious at the moment, everything they touch turns to shit, whilst Russians somehow manage to get their way at the same time avoiding to come out the bigger cunts they are. They've learned how to do media, when to stay away, when to cut their losses and focus on what is most important for them, how to effectively combine bombs and diplomacy. Kudos.

I read an article by Greenwald recently which debunked all that stuff about Russia interfering in the US Elections,said it was based on lies. Unless you mean them being pro Trump as they realise what a moron he is?

[Stu Monty]

Think you're giving them too much credit there to be honest. There's nothing especially skilful or Machiavellian about what they've done. Not reciprocating the expulsions is just common sense when there's a new sympathetic administration less than a month away. Under the circumstances it would have been idiotic to respond in kind.

 

The hacking didn't swing the election for Trump - if any one incident in the campaign did it was the timing of the FBI's investigation into Clinton's private server, which as far as I'm aware no one is attributing to Russia. If there was any calculated intent behind it it was most likely the FBI hoping that Trump would grant them sweeping new surveillance powers if he won.

 

As for Syria, lots of talk about Obama being outsmarted by Putin, but Russia simply stood by their ally - nothing particularly cunning about it, any more than if the US had backed up the Saudi or Qatari royal families against a Russian-backed rebellion. Just because the US made a series of missteps in Syria, that doesn't translate into Russia playing a blinder. Putin held all the cards from the beginning and didn't need to be especially smart to come out on top, just resolute.

 

Not allowing people who wanted to vote democrat in swing states a vote seems very much to have swung the election. As always there were quite a lot of dodgy people trying to brazenly vote whilst in possession of a brown skin. The fucking cheek of them. The crosscheck programme luckily put a stop to that. I saw the other day that an organisation that rates the levels of democracy in elections downgraded North Carolina to the point where it couldn't be called democratic, which is nice.

 

Coming to a Tory party strategy book near you in 2017.

 

But let's all just keep talking about hacking because anyone who says the whole system is bent won't be getting sorted out by anyone after they stop running for office. As an aside, anyone know what Al Gore's bank account, lobbying contacts and speaking tour calendar looks like now?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Putin getting far to much recognition here. Russia had the advantage of the USA acting first on the supposed Hacking incident and he has just been advised well on how best to react. Russia know that in Trump they have someone they can manipulate for their own good, by fuck are they gonna get some joy out of that. Trump will be balls deep in Russian whores and Krimsekt, much like Blatter was whilst at FIFA. Putin would be loving this though, he said the UK was an irrelevant little island nobody cares about yet some show admiration due to how he/those around him has/have handled one incident.

 

I wonder how long it will take before Russia start taking back land which was lost after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 

[dennis tooth]

It wasn't Russian hackers though it was a disillusioned democrat insider angry at the Bernie Sanders thing.

[SasaS]

Think you're giving them too much credit there to be honest. There's nothing especially skilful or Machiavellian about what they've done. Not reciprocating the expulsions is just common sense when there's a new sympathetic administration less than a month away. Under the circumstances it would have been idiotic to respond in kind.

 

The hacking didn't swing the election for Trump - if any one incident in the campaign did it was the timing of the FBI's investigation into Clinton's private server, which as far as I'm aware no one is attributing to Russia. If there was any calculated intent behind it it was most likely the FBI hoping that Trump would grant them sweeping new surveillance powers if he won.

 

As for Syria, lots of talk about Obama being outsmarted by Putin, but Russia simply stood by their ally - nothing particularly cunning about it, any more than if the US had backed up the Saudi or Qatari royal families against a Russian-backed rebellion. Just because the US made a series of missteps in Syria, that doesn't translate into Russia playing a blinder. Putin held all the cards from the beginning and didn't need to be especially smart to come out on top, just resolute.

 

 

I don't think I am, I feel am giving Russians the right amount of credit, under the circumstances and in the context of actual balance of power. In Syria, Russia saved Assad from international intervention by waiting for the US to make a case (chemical weapons - WMD) and then have him give it up, leaving the US no choice but to abandon the plans of open intervention. When mostly regionally backed rebels threatened to overpower Assad's regime which was barely hanging on due to Iranian help, they moved in and took control of the situation. They did it through more or less open military intervention of their own, on a larger scale than the West in Libya, with large portions of Western public opinion still believing it was the Americans bombing Syria into the Middle Ages. And foreign military interventions are logistical and organisational nightmares. The story is also it was Russians who warned Erdogan of the coup in the summer and saved him from arrest or at least serious arrest attempt, which made Erdogan extremely suspicious of Americans and that this beginning of a beautiful friendship is now shaping the situation in the region. Americans are left with supporting the left wing Kurds in YPG which has no strategic future as both sides don't like each other much and with crying about civilians in rebel held areas, where they are carpet bombed with clever counter propaganda every step of the way.

 

On the US elections thing, I never said Russians swayed the elections, I said interfered, which is accusation coming from the American intelligence community and resisting the impulse to retaliate / escalate in international relations is a tactical quality of great significance.

 

In Ukraine, Russians used their still impressive intelligence capabilities to discredit the American interference (the US ambassador cough on tape) also, when they realized they are losing, they activated plan B, which was focus on what they actually want the most (Crimea) and executed it to perfection, using every weakness on the part of the opponent, at the same time exercising restraint and displays of brutal and merciless force (counter attack to save Donbass, destruction of Ukrainian forces at Ilovaisk). Instead of having Ukraine drifting towards the EU, it is now turned into Georgia.

 

Russians are quietly trying to take over or massively boost their interest in parts of West Balkans (Bosnia (Serb entity), Montenegro, Serbia), they are working with Orban in Hungary where money was offered to finance the new nuclear reactor, they have also quietly increased influence in some former Soviet areas. On the media front, they have turned RT into an important outlet for every non-Russia related issue which is not covered by main Western mainstream media and thus increased their reach for Russia-related ones when needed.

 

And this is all done by a country which always used to serve as a symbol for lack of subtlety in international relations, a country which has been seriously hit by low energy prices (they had to spend 2/3 of their sovereign fund assets during the period to stay afloat) and a country which moves, according to Obama, show desperation. Well, if this is desperation, I am scared shitless of when their moves start reflecting their strength.

 

[Stu Monty]

If proper investigative journalists had a place to hold to account the policy and actions of the USA then RT would have had significantly less traction with a lot of people. But, as we are still seeing after the election, the mainstream political establishment is continuing with the narrative that their shit doesn't stink and that questioning "the good guys" is anti-american and unpatriotic.

 

Obama set the bar pretty high on some of the shit that the media are now shitting themselves about Trump being able to do; from deportation to extra-judicial killing and the persecution of whistleblowers. Maybe if they had taken their head out of their hubris filled arses and kept their own guys honest then they wouldn't have just lost an election to a fucking clown running through a minefield. I get that your boy can't take on every battle, that's reality, but don't fucking cry it in about Trump suggestion he might kill terrorists families and not give two shits about Obama actually fucking doing it.

 

I'm sick of hearing them moaning about post-truth news when someone decides to turn the dial from 10 to 11. "Oh, our institutions are failing" - yeah, because they've been a fucking shambles for years - take your share of the blame.

[Neil G]

I'm not sure about this. There seems to have been something of whoever was willing to make the first move. If the US had been more decisive earlier, I'm not convinced Russia would have played as big a role in the conflict. I think Putin just pounced on the US' dithering.

I think it's nailed on that Putin would have responded with force if the US had taken serious military action against Assad. Syria is Russia's most important ally in the Middle East, and there's no way Putin would have stood by and risked losing the use of Tartus and Latakia and leaving the way clear for the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. Surprised you haven't acknowledged the importance of the latter given what you've previously posted about Qatar's support for ISIS.

 

Putin's whole strategy is based on making Russia a global player again and standing up to the West after losing the Cold War. If he'd given the US a free pass to oust or even just weaken Assad, especially after Russia's objections over Iraq and Libya, it would have completely undermined that strategy and might have finished him politically. Also it would have made it very hard for Russia to build and maintain alliances with other client states if it couldn't bring itself to prop up an ally of 60 years.

[Neil G]

Not allowing people who wanted to vote democrat in swing states a vote seems very much to have swung the election. As always there were quite a lot of dodgy people trying to brazenly vote whilst in possession of a brown skin. The fucking cheek of them. The crosscheck programme luckily put a stop to that. I saw the other day that an organisation that rates the levels of democracy in elections downgraded North Carolina to the point where it couldn't be called democratic, which is nice.

 

Coming to a Tory party strategy book near you in 2017.

 

But let's all just keep talking about hacking because anyone who says the whole system is bent won't be getting sorted out by anyone after they stop running for office. As an aside, anyone know what Al Gore's bank account, lobbying contacts and speaking tour calendar looks like now?

I meant the incident which did most to change people's perceptions nationwide and persuade them to vote for Trump when they would otherwise have voted for Clinton.

 

Your last paragraph seems to suggest that the Democrats are keeping quiet about voter suppression even though it's costing them elections. Why would they do that? Surely if you're a pro-establishment centrist Democrat on the make it's perfectly possible to kick off about black people being disenfranchised while keeping quiet about campaign finance and special interests and the rest, no?

[Neil G]

I don't think I am, I feel am giving Russians the right amount of credit, under the circumstances and in the context of actual balance of power. In Syria, Russia saved Assad from international intervention by waiting for the US to make a case (chemical weapons - WMD) and then have him give it up, leaving the US no choice but to abandon the plans of open intervention. When mostly regionally backed rebels threatened to overpower Assad's regime which was barely hanging on due to Iranian help, they moved in and took control of the situation. They did it through more or less open military intervention of their own, on a larger scale than the West in Libya, with large portions of Western public opinion still believing it was the Americans bombing Syria into the Middle Ages. And foreign military interventions are logistical and organisational nightmares. The story is also it was Russians who warned Erdogan of the coup in the summer and saved him from arrest or at least serious arrest attempt, which made Erdogan extremely suspicious of Americans and that this beginning of a beautiful friendship is now shaping the situation in the region. Americans are left with supporting the left wing Kurds in YPG which has no strategic future as both sides don't like each other much and with crying about civilians in rebel held areas, where they are carpet bombed with clever counter propaganda every step of the way.

On the US elections thing, I never said Russians swayed the elections, I said interfered, which is accusation coming from the American intelligence community and resisting the impulse to retaliate / escalate in international relations is a tactical quality of great significance.

In Ukraine, Russians used their still impressive intelligence capabilities to discredit the American interference (the US ambassador cough on tape) also, when they realized they are losing, they activated plan B, which was focus on what they actually want the most (Crimea) and executed it to perfection, using every weakness on the part of the opponent, at the same time exercising restraint and displays of brutal and merciless force (counter attack to save Donbass, destruction of Ukrainian forces at Ilovaisk). Instead of having Ukraine drifting towards the EU, it is now turned into Georgia.

 

Russians are quietly trying to take over or massively boost their interest in parts of West Balkans (Bosnia (Serb entity), Montenegro, Serbia), they are working with Orban in Hungary where money was offered to finance the new nuclear reactor, they have also quietly increased influence in some former Soviet areas. On the media front, they have turned RT into an important outlet for every non-Russia related issue which is not covered by main Western mainstream media and thus increased their reach for Russia-related ones when needed.

 

And this is all done by a country which always used to serve as a symbol for lack of subtlety in international relations, a country which has been seriously hit by low energy prices (they had to spend 2/3 of their sovereign fund assets during the period to stay afloat) and a country which moves, according to Obama, show desperation. Well, if this is desperation, I am scared shitless of when their moves start reflecting their strength.

You described the decision not to respond to the expulsions as brilliant, which I thought was excessive praise. It was just the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, no more than that.

 

I don't think the timing of the intervention in Syria was any kind of masterstroke either, they just left it until Assad was starting to struggle and needed their help and they had no choice but to step in. Like any smart international player they'd prefer not to put boots on the ground themselves and let local forces do the work if that can achieve the same objectives. I don't buy that they were waiting until the US showed itself unwilling to intervene against Assad - two years elapsed between Obama fluffing his lines over the chemical attacks and Russia's military intervention, so if a guarantee of US inaction was the green light they were waiting for they'd have gone in much sooner.

 

I acknowledge you didn't claim the hacking swung the election, I dropped that in because it's a claim that's been made by other commentators bigging up Putin's achievements. Apologies if you felt I was misrepresenting you.

 

I agree Russia have been very savvy elsewhere, I just didn't think that was the case with the examples you listed in the initial post.

[Jairzinho]

Fuck sake, phone just deleted my reply, Neil.

 

tldr version -

 

Wasn't suggesting Putin would ever give the yanks a free pass, just think the latter's indecisiveness made things considerably easier for Putin. The game of chicken never had to happen.

[Neil G]

Fuck sake, phone just deleted my reply, Neil.

Russian malware.

[Strontium]

Russian malware.

 

Friendly fire, then.

[Jairzinho]

Not sure why they'd do that, I work for them...I mean, er...

[Stu Monty]

I meant the incident which did most to change people's perceptions nationwide and persuade them to vote for Trump when they would otherwise have voted for Clinton.

 

Your last paragraph seems to suggest that the Democrats are keeping quiet about voter suppression even though it's costing them elections. Why would they do that? Surely if you're a pro-establishment centrist Democrat on the make it's perfectly possible to kick off about black people being disenfranchised while keeping quiet about campaign finance and special interests and the rest, no?

 

I think there is some truth to that but it under-estimates just how unpopular you make yourself in all the areas that you quite enjoy having access to if you start telling people that the US does not have democratic elections and as such the system that survives on the facade of not being rigged, is well and truly rigged. A media that gets its profit from covering that shining democracy will paint you as a lunatic and the money you need to play the game will run to the hills.

 

Just to clarify too - I'm not suggesting that they are keeping quiet, they are. We can argue about the reasons but not that it is actually happening. Crosscheck should be the single biggest topic after that election, I'd imagine under 1% of the population have even heard of it. They are far too busy going after journalists that have the temerity to question the DNC's startegy and choices over the last few years (all Russian stooges of course) in order to keep hold of their meal ticket. Win or lose, they want to make sure they get to keep playing. #ChelseaFor2020!!

[SasaS]

Put in a bid for Putin?

 

 

Let's just say that if we had Putin, I would be much more confident when I hear we are aggressively monitoring the situation.

[SasaS]

You described the decision not to respond to the expulsions as brilliant, which I thought was excessive praise. It was just the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, no more than that.

 

I don't think the timing of the intervention in Syria was any kind of masterstroke either, they just left it until Assad was starting to struggle and needed their help and they had no choice but to step in. Like any smart international player they'd prefer not to put boots on the ground themselves and let local forces do the work if that can achieve the same objectives. I don't buy that they were waiting until the US showed itself unwilling to intervene against Assad - two years elapsed between Obama fluffing his lines over the chemical attacks and Russia's military intervention, so if a guarantee of US inaction was the green light they were waiting for they'd have gone in much sooner.

 

I acknowledge you didn't claim the hacking swung the election, I dropped that in because it's a claim that's been made by other commentators bigging up Putin's achievements. Apologies if you felt I was misrepresenting you.

 

I agree Russia have been very savvy elsewhere, I just didn't think that was the case with the examples you listed in the initial post.

 

No, I quoted your post for context and than tried to expand on my point.

 

The flipside of Russia's achievements would be that they are still doing stuff on a much smaller scale than the US and mostly in territories where they have previous experience. Also, in the long run it's not going to bring them much good.

[SasaS]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38528329
 

The US has identified the Russian agents behind alleged hacking ahead of the presidential election won by Donald Trump in November, reports say.

The agents, whose names have not been released, are alleged to have sent stolen Democratic emails to WikiLeaks to try to swing the vote for Mr Trump.

[Jairzinho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hSLL_lRNE8

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W48jAmDQY4

https://actions.sumofus.org/a/while-flint-drinks-poison-nestle-is-pumping-out-200-gallons-of-fresh-water-every-minute

[Red Phoenix]

Bernie Sanders: How Democrats Can Stop Losing Elections

 

By Bernie Sanders, June 13, 2017

 

In 2016, the Democratic Party lost the presidency to possibly the least popular candidate in American history. In recent years, Democrats have also lost the Senate and House to right-wing Republicans whose extremist agenda is far removed from where most Americans are politically. Republicans now control almost two-thirds of governor’s offices and have gained about 1,000 seats in state legislatures in the past nine years. In 24 states, Democrats have almost no political influence at all.

 

If these results are not a clear manifestation of a failed political strategy, I don’t know what is. For the sake of our country and the world, the Democratic Party, in a very fundamental way, must change direction. It has got to open its doors wide to working people and young people. It must become less dependent on wealthy contributors, and it must make clear to the working families of this country that, in these difficult times, it is prepared to stand up and fight for their rights. Without hesitation, it must take on the powerful corporate interests that dominate the economic and political life of the country.

 

There are lessons to be learned from the recent campaign in Britain. The Conservatives there called the snap election with the full expectation that they would win a landslide. They didn’t. Against all predictions they lost 13 seats in Parliament while Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party won 32. There is never one reason elections are won or lost, but there is widespread agreement that momentum shifted to Labour after it released a very progressive manifesto that generated much enthusiasm among young people and workers. One of the most interesting aspects of the election was the soaring turnout among voters 34 or younger.

 

The British elections should be a lesson for the Democratic Party. We already have among the lowest voter turnout of any major country on earth. Democrats will not win if the 2018 midterm election turnout resembles the unbelievably low 36.7 percent of eligible voters who cast ballots in 2014. The Democrats must develop an agenda that speaks to the pain of tens of millions of families who are working longer hours for lower wages and to the young people who, unless we turn the economy around, will have a lower standard of living than their parents.

 

A vast majority of Americans understand that our current economic model is a dismal failure. Who can honestly defend the current grotesque level of inequality in which the top 1 percent owns more than the bottom 90 percent? Who thinks it’s right that, despite a significant increase in worker productivity, millions of Americans need two or three jobs to survive, while 52 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent? What person who claims to have a sense of morality can justify the fact that the richest people in our country have a life expectancy about 15 years longer than our poorest citizens?

 

While Democrats should appeal to moderate Republicans who are disgusted with the Trump presidency, too many in our party cling to an overly cautious, centrist ideology. The party’s main thrust must be to make politics relevant to those who have given up on democracy and bring millions of new voters into the political process. It must be prepared to take on the right-wing extremist ideology of the Koch brothers and the billionaire class, and fight for an economy and a government that work for all, not just the 1 percent.

 

Donald Trump wants to throw 23 million Americans off health insurance. Democrats must guarantee health care to all as a right, through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.

 

Mr. Trump wants to give enormous tax breaks to billionaires. Democrats must support a progressive tax system that demands that the very wealthy, Wall Street and large corporations begin paying their fair share of taxes.

 

Mr. Trump wants to sell our infrastructure to Wall Street and foreign countries. Democrats must fight for a trillion-dollar public investment that creates over 13 million good-paying jobs.

 

Mr. Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Democrats must take on the fossil fuel industry and accelerate our efforts to combat climate change by encouraging energy efficiency and the use of sustainable energy.

 

Mr. Trump has proposed deep cuts to higher education. Democrats must make public colleges and universities tuition free, and substantially lower student debt.

 

Mr. Trump has doubled-down on our failed approach to crime that has resulted in the United States’ having more people in jail than any other country. Democrats must reform a broken criminal justice system and invest in jobs and education for our young people, not more jails and incarceration.

 

Mr. Trump has scapegoated and threatened the 11 million undocumented people in our country. Democrats must fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path toward citizenship.

 

This is a pivotal moment in American history. If the Democrats are prepared to rally grass-roots America in every state and to stand up to the greed of the billionaire class, the party will stop losing elections. And it will create the kind of country the American people want and deserve.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-how-democrats-can-stop-losing-elections.html

 

 

[Strontium]

Didn't Bernie lose the Democratic nomination to possibly the least popular Democratic candidate in history?

 

Not sure that marks him out as some sort of election guru, tbh.

[Red Phoenix]

Didn't Bernie lose the Democratic nomination to possibly the least popular Democratic candidate in history?

 

Not sure that marks him out as some sort of election guru, tbh.

 

You're being disingenuous, it's well accepted at this point that the DNC were supporting Clinton all along, as were sections of the media. Similar situation to what Corbyn had to put up with. If the race had been fair he would've probably trounced the psychopath.

 

Not that you're interested in that part though. You're making about as much sense as rico is doing with the "Corbyn lost the election" posts, whilst ignoring all the obstacles that he had to try and overcome.

 

And thanks to those obstacles we currently have Trump and May in power.

[Red Phoenix]

I guess this is the part that Stronts disliked the most :

 

 

 

While Democrats should appeal to moderate Republicans who are disgusted with the Trump presidency, too many in our party cling to an overly cautious, centrist ideology.

[G Richards]

I like Bernie Sanders and he has a lot of good ideas that are captivating and worth voting for. He would have defeated Trump on a resurgent wave of political engagement by the millennial generation, and America would have been passed down from the control of the baby boomers. 

 

It didn't happen because to get there Sanders had to fight against a political machine that was impossible to defeat, as the Clinton family operated the levers of Democratic power. 

[VladimirIlyich]

The real problem for Sanders,and its a problem for anybody who fights for the Presidency, is that he wasn't rich enough. Crowd funding can only go so far and in his case nowhere near far enough.