Geoff > Status Update

But has he done anything in office that seriously benefits Putin in any way?

Apart from making the US a global laughingstock and weakening its relationships with most of its key allies?

I know it doesn't sound like much, but don't be too hard on him. He tried to do a bunch of other stuff, but people keep getting in his way.

But what are you alleging? That Trump is actually an operative of Putin? That seems plainly false.

If you're claiming that Putin preferred a Trump presidency to a Clinton one, then sure. Why wouldn't he? Clinton made a point of running to Trump's right on Russia.

Did Putin actually have much to do with the outcome of the election. I'm going to say no. Seems as likely as not the DNC hack was not perpetrated by the Russians (see above), and even in the unlikely event that it was, that was such a small factor in the calculus that led Trump to the presidency. The vast majority of the electorate already viewed Clinton as untrustworthy due to scandals of her own making.

David wrote: "But what are you alleging? That Trump is actually an operative of Putin? That seems plainly false.

If you're claiming that Putin preferred a Trump presidency to a Clinton one, then sure. Why would..."

I don't know what the relationship is between Trump and Putin, but Mueller's team has been tasked with finding out more. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. Trump has shown extraordinary reluctance to cross Putin. There are many question-marks about where his money comes from, and what dealings he's had with the Russians. There is a great deal of evidence that the Russians actively helped him during his campaign.

None of this is conclusive. But the most obvious interpretation of what we can see is that Putin calculated it would be to his advantage to have a severely compromised, terminally dishonest buffoon in the White House, and helped Trump in various ways, the largest of which was probably giving him money through intermediaries. It seems to have worked out well. The US is certainly weaker as a result. Putin has played this cleverly.

Perhaps, but I would say the status of the US as global hegemon has already been on the decline for many years. Certainly Bush jr's disastrous war on Iraq was a far bigger blow to US power - & a greater tragedy - than anything Trump has done so far.

I agree, Bush II did more damage than Trump has managed to do so far. But he had eight years to do it, Trump has not even had one yet. Give the guy a chance to show what he's capable of. I think you're misunderestimating him.

I'm not sure if this is a case of the being US being 'strong', but here's an important report on the ongoing rape of Yemen and our government's complicity.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/...

Two big takeaways:

-Trump's policy here is continuous with Obama's, and is likely the same as the one Clinton would have pursued (the Clinton foundations took millions of dollars from the Saudi, and in general criticized Obama for not being too weak on foreign policy)

-the plague of climate change is already here. If a person chooses to deny it, he's not so much denying scientific predictions about the future as a catastrophe that's happening now

Great op ed in the New York Times on the dangers of tyrannophobia. The authors actually accept the very Russian hack that I've been disputing, but even so argue that it's hardly the main story

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/op...

And while the shock of the 2016 election caused unprecedented soul-searching, tyrannophobia is blinding many to the real warnings of the election: A dysfunctional economy, not lurking tyranny, is what needs attention if recent electoral choices are to be explained — and voting patterns are to be changed in the future.

Interesting piece. Seeing the tyrannophobia thing analysed. Didn't really know the word before. I think I only really became aware of the phenomenon in America in the last 18 months, the extent to which Dems / Republicans each feel that a win from the other side is semi-apocalyptic. I mean, it's on a different scale from the stuff here about Lab/Tory. The prepper type response, the depth to which it goes. There seem to be fewer basic principles the sides agree on over there.

And if it is detracting a bit too much on the ground from sorting out unemployment and decline, and from the left consolidating to challenge in 2020, then it is a problem. I don't hear about stuff over there that's any equivalent to Corbyn's near-permanent campaign mode.

Antonomasia wrote: "Interesting piece. Seeing the tyrannophobia thing analysed. Didn't really know the word before. I think I only really became aware of the phenomenon in America in the last 18 months, the extent to ..."

In my opinion, the apocalyptic partisanship of mainstream politics in the US often serves as a distraction from how much the two sides actually do agree on. In foreign policy, there's real continuity no matter who is in office (Trump's Yemen policy, probably the single most shameful aspect of his presidency so far, is basically the same as Obama's). Domestically, stratification continues apace regardless.

I think the symbolism of Russia in the way some of the far left sees this business is mistaken. Russia isn't a communist power any more. It's just another dictatorship and has many more conservative features than not. There isn't a *present* reason to defend it from the left.

The left has a lot of romanticised loyalty to how stuff used to be: this reminds me of socialists who were loyal to the Blairite Labour Party simply because of what the party stood for historically, not what it was *at the time*, and when it espoused a lot of stuff they disagreed with. (Although I would now acknowledge that many of its policies, especially on welfare and poverty, were better than the Tories' would have been at the time. That has nothing to do with Putin however.)

From the Guam’s Joint Information Center Fact Sheet: In Case of Emergency…… Preparing for an Imminent Missile Threat

Shielding: The heavier and denser the materials – thick walls, concrete, bricks, books and earth – between you can the fallout particles, the better. If you have time, find plastic sheeting from your preparedness kit and cover doors, windows, and ventilation to keep as much of the fallout particles out of your home.

There you have it: Books and save lives!

Antonomasia wrote: "I think the symbolism of Russia in the way some of the far left sees this business is mistaken. Russia isn't a communist power any more. It's just another dictatorship and has many more conservativ..."

Outside my literary circles, I associate pretty exclusively with people on the far left, and I don't know anyone who defends Putin. The only people I know of who think Russia is still Soviet are idiot centrists like Joy Reid. It's perfectly consistent to support detente with Russia without defending Putin specifically.

Alfred wrote: "I mean, this guy is bending over backwards for Putin. You've got to admit that's suspicious, no?"

Thing is, I just don't see how Trump is bending over backwards for Putin. Bombing Assad and signing the sanctions bill against Russia - these are things Putin definitely did not want to happen.

Like, what would it take at this point for Trump to prove that he's not a puppet of Putin? If he nuked St. Petersburg, members of the #Resistance would find it suspicious that he didn't nuke Moscow.

Trump is certainly a scumbag. It wouldn't surprise me if he's had corrupt dealings with Russian billionaire scumbags. However, people are constantly making two much stronger claims : 1) that Trump won the election due to Russian interference, and 2) that in office he's acted as a puppet of Putin.

Both claims are false, and, in my view, noxious distractions from the real ills of our republic and the world.

Yup. In a movie, I'd know Trump was clean, because there was too much foreshadowing about his Russian mob connections and the revelation would just be an anticlimax. For dramatic reasons, it would have to be, so to speak, a red herring. But this is real life.

Yeah, I agree Trump should release his tax returns.

Alfred wrote: "Putin will always seek to undermine the US however and whenever and whomever is in office. "

Disagree with that. In the early years of the 'war on terror' Putin was eager to show himself as a useful partner to the US. There may be some inter-imperial rivalry now, but the US is so clearly the superior power both militarily and economically.

Manny wrote: "Yup. In a movie, I'd know Trump was clean, because there was too much foreshadowing about his Russian mob connections and the revelation would just be an anticlimax. For dramatic reasons, it would ..."

Again, what is the actual claim you are making? No, Trump obviously is not clean. He's a corrupt piece of shit.

Are you arguing

1) that Trump won the election due to Russian interference,

or

2) that in office he's acted as a puppet of Putin

?

If so, then you should argue for them rather than relying so much on innuendo.

There are options aside from #1 or #2. If Trump accepted or solicited an offer of Russian help (the hacking of the DNC, for example), regardless of whether that help was the deciding factor in the election or not, my understanding is that that's a crime. And he did solicit it, publicly. Or was he joking? I'm glad we have a special counsel working to find out.

If Trump hasn't lived up to Putin's expectations (in part because, as Manny pointed out, Congress would have overridden his veto of the Russian sanctions) that wouldn't change the fact of the crime.

I don't see any particular reason to think that scenario is true (again, https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/ar...) but I'll agree that it is possible.

David wrote: "I don't see any particular reason to think that scenario is true (again, https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/ar...) but I'll agree that..."

Not being a tech person, I guess this article presents some points that could be investigated. It is a bit hard to believe though, especially when the Trump campaign employed so many people with ties to Russia. For the moment I'll take the conclusion of the intelligence agencies.

I dislike the conflation at the end of the article, though: "...leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one." This is a different matter. We can understand that American society has culpability for Trump and at the same time hold him accountable for collusion with Russia, if he's done it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Theoretically, yes, both things are possible. But look at the degree to which, say, MSNBC is flogging the Russia story, regardless of whether they have any actual evidence. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that many liberals are using this as a cop out

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/m...

David wrote: "Again, what is the actual claim you are making? No, Trump obviously is not clean. He's a corrupt piece of shit.

Are you arguing

1) that Trump won the election due to Russian interference,

or

2) that in office he's acted as a puppet of Putin"

I am more or less certain that Russian interference helped Trump during the election, but, like everyone else, I don't know how much. Since the result was very close, it's absolutely possible that it was what pushed him over the top.

Trump started off trying to help Putin. In particular, he made obvious attempts to get sanctions lifted. But Congress blocked his efforts. Separation of powers is a good idea - thank you, Founding Fathers!

He has throughout been extremely reluctant to criticize Putin. The recent sanctions bill was signed under protest, when he had no option to veto. The unofficial second meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit, with no other US officials or translators present, was kind of incredible. I have trouble believing that any other president would have done that.

When Trump used cruise missiles against the Syrian airforce, he went to considerable lengths to warn the Russians in advance.

As much as I am sympathetic to Russian position on various geopolitical matters including the need to resist NATO's expansion and America's hegemony in the brave new world, I cannot think of a genuine reason for Trump's unusually conciliatory attitude towards Putin. Despite projecting an image of a maverick all he has ever done is watered the "Washington swamp" even more. At home he is towards the right of the right within his party and abroad his foreign policy turned out to be identical to his republican (and even democrat) predecessors. Appease our SOBs and find scapegoats to save them, whilst constantly looking for an excuse to start another war.

However, come Russia and things stop making sense. As an outsider who hasn't followed the story as closely as some of you have done, all I can say that it's unusual, - very, very unusual. It is an article of republican faith to portray Russians as the biggest evil in the world (epitomised by McCain's Russophobia, although Hilary wasn't far behind) and it's really hard to understand why Trump is so eager to roll back America's Russia policy so drastically without demanding anything in return. For one it is not a genuine policy issue where the POTUS is seeking to mend relations in a daring attempt of great statesmanship. Nope. Trump doesn't have that kind of nerve for that kind of diplomacy.

So what is it...hmphhh

David wrote: "Theoretically, yes, both things are possible. But look at the degree to which, say, MSNBC is flogging the Russia story, regardless of whether they have any actual evidence. It's hard to avoid the c..."

I see your point. If they try to run Hillary Clinton again, we'll know that they haven't learned anything. On the other hand, there's an investigation going on of a sitting president- that's news that has to be reported.

I agree that we have to understand Trump as an organic American phenomenon, and that we've apparently created a state of affairs where someone like him can flourish. Simultaneously, we can't afford to underestimate him. That's why I think deriding the possibility of autocracy as 'tyrannaphobia' is extremely dangerous. If anything, I think people are not talking about the possibility enough. Autocrats have and do seize power, often through democratic means. It also doesn't happen overnight, which makes it easy for people to ignore the possibility. Putin and Erdogan both took years to consolidate their holds on power. There's no reason that Americans should consider themselves exempt.

Greenwald's comparison of the investigation to McCarthyism (in a related article I found at the bottom of your link) seems pretty blithe and irresponsible. That interpretation plays right into Trump's hands.

A pivot to Russia would actually make perfect sense from the perspective of US interests and strategy, as China is this country's real emerging rival as global hegemon. If Trump were doing that, it wouldn't be necessary to bring in conspiracy theories to explain it. However, again, that doesn't appear to be what he is doing, since he's continuing hostile policies towards Russia.

I am a little surprised to hear the claim that Russia helped Trump win the 2016 election called a "conspiracy theory". All the US intelligence agencies officially agreed on this. It isn't normal to treat such pronouncements as conspiracy theories.

Is the claim that North Korea has succeeded in miniaturising nuclear weapons so that they fit in an ICBM a conspiracy theory? As far as I can see, this is much less well documented. It's just a leak from an intelligence agency.

The idea that Iraq had WMDs was a conspiracy theory, regardless of the fact that this idea was advanced by mainstream institutions.

In any case, strike out that term if you want. I think the point still stands.

But is there serious doubt that Russia was helping Trump? The only thing that's unclear is how much, and in what way.

You can at least construct a plausible motive - an oligarchic government cooperating with big business interests intervenes in a foreign democracy to advance its own financial interests (e.g. the removal of sanctions and the repeal of the Magnitsky Act).

Hadrian wrote: "You can at least construct a plausible motive - an oligarchic government cooperating with big business interests intervenes in a foreign democracy to advance its own financial interests (e.g. the r..."

Indeed. And there is plenty of evidence that Russia did in fact interfere.

It seems to me that you need a "Deep State" style conspiracy theory if you want to claim no interference, i.e. that people at the US intelligence agencies have been fabricating/exaggerating evidence for political ends. Of course that's possible too. But let's get the burden of proof the right way round.

Manny wrote: "Hadrian wrote: "You can at least construct a plausible motive - an oligarchic government cooperating with big business interests intervenes in a foreign democracy to advance its own financial inter..."

Of course. I'm following the Mueller investigation with interest, although they'd better hurry. After 8 months he's already escalating tensions with the North Koreans and Nazis are committing domestic terrorism in Virginia. Too much damage has already been done.

Mueller seems to be moving forward quickly. I wonder if we'll be seeing more predawn raids.

Disheartening on the other hand to see that threatening nuclear war is a popular strategy with Trump's supporters. Luckily, a real nuclear war would crash the Dow, so I guess he won't go as far as actually doing it.

The Dow is not the only thing it'd crash.

I now seriously believe that God put Trump in charge purposefully, given His (God's) predilection for raining fire and brimstone down upon humanity whenever he is pissed off with it.

Well, I mentioned the Dow because it's clearly one of the things Trump cares about. I'm hoping he'd also care that tens of millions of people would die in Korea and Japan, but I haven't actually seen proof of that.

Hadrian wrote: "You can at least construct a plausible motive - an oligarchic government cooperating with big business interests intervenes in a foreign democracy to advance its own financial interests (e.g. the r..."

Not to mention longstanding animosity towards Hillary Clinton. As long ago as 2011, Putin was blaming her for the massive protests in Moscow, claiming that she had given the protestors "the signal."

Manny wrote: "But is there serious doubt that Russia was helping Trump? The only thing that's unclear is how much, and in what way."

Based on that Bloomberg article, yes, I'd say there's reason to doubt even the more minimal claims about Russian interference.

And there's every reason to reject the paranoid political style that sees Putin's hand behind every development here in the US.

David wrote: "Manny wrote: "But is there serious doubt that Russia was helping Trump? The only thing that's unclear is how much, and in what way."

Based on that Bloomberg article, yes, I'd say there's reason to..."

Well... if there was no Russian interference, then why are all the US intelligence agencies saying there was? Why did Congress approve a sweeping sanctions package based on their data?

Maybe there really is a Deep State that's trying to bring Trump down using whatever means it has available. But other things being equal, I'm reluctant to believe conspiracy theories. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That's an argument from authority, not evidence.

By the same logic, Iraq definitely did have WMDs.

The Bloomberg article claims that the information was downloaded too quickly for it to have been done through the internet, ~180 megabits/second. Some big organizations and some regions (like those with access to Google Fiber) have bandwidth at 500 megabits/second or even 1 gigabit/second. It's not implausible for an intelligence agency (hell even a big company) to shell out for faster internet speeds.

David wrote: "That's an argument from authority, not evidence.

By the same logic, Iraq definitely did have WMDs."

I'm not able to evaluate the evidence directly. To start off with, most of it is secret. But what we have seen comes across as quite plausible, and Putin has a clear motive.

A lot of people believed in the WMDs. It was only after carrying out an exhaustive search that opinion swung round to deciding they had never been there. Right now, Mueller & co are also making an exhaustive search. Maybe they'll find nothing too... do you want to make a bet? What odds will you give me?

I'm not claiming to know who hacked the DNC. The point is neither do any of you. The burden of proof is certainly on people who claim to know it was Russian intelligence.

David wrote: "I'm not claiming to know who hacked the DNC. The point is neither do any of you. The burden of proof is certainly on people who claim to know it was Russian intelligence."

My understanding is that the spooks presented good evidence to Congress. Call me naive, but I'd guess that they know about the stuff in the Bloomberg article.

Jessaka wrote: "The closer Mueller gets to the truth, the closer Trump gets to nuclear war. Anything for a diversion. At least that is my uneducated take on it."

I watched a clip from Doctor Strangelove the other day and was quite alarmed to see how funny it was. Bad sign.

If I were Mueller, I think I would have developed bleeding ulcers quite a while ago. On one hand, you want to move as quickly as possible. On the other, you can't afford to make any missteps.

someone claims the assertion russian hackers deliberately aided trump over hilary is only an 'argument from authority'. respectfully disagree. who is better as authority than entire intelligence community? unless we decide cia, fbi, nsa, are all politically motivated fantasists, there is no other credible source of judgment. do we refuse to teach evolution because we prefer the 'authority' of the bible or other holy books- or over a hundred years of biological theories?

Nandakishore wrote: "I now seriously believe that God put Trump in charge purposefully, given His (God's) predilection for raining fire and brimstone down upon humanity..."

Seems plausible. Reminds me of the final paragraph in James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time

"The world will end in fire next time..."

the gift wrote: "someone claims the assertion russian hackers deliberately aided trump over hilary is only an 'argument from authority'. respectfully disagree. who is better as authority than entire intelligence co..."

The analogy does not hold up. The CIA is not an impartial body of truth seekers. It's a wing of the national security state. If the national board of biologists had recently and repeatedly proven to be epically wrong in their predictions, then yes it would make sense to doubt their authority.

Moreover, the US Congress has often shown itself to be hellbent on confrontation with foreign powers whether or not there's any plausible claim to self-defense.

Trusting these institutions does strike me as naive.

David wrote: "The analogy does not hold up. The CIA is not an impartial body of truth seekers. It's a wing of the national security state. If the national board of biologists had recently and repeatedly proven to be epically wrong in their predictions, then yes it would make sense to doubt their authority.

Moreover, the US Congress has often shown itself to be hellbent on confrontation with foreign powers whether or not there's any plausible claim to self-defense.

Trusting these institutions does strike me as naive."

But why do you trust an article in Bloomberg, which moreover rests on an obscure technical point, more than the combination of all the US intelligence agencies plus Congress? Okay, the spooks are not impartial, nor is Congress. But I doubt Bloomberg is either. What you have here is just a conspiracy theory: the Deep State (including John McCain and Lindsey Graham!?) wants to discredit Trump. And I'll need a lot more evidence than what you've shown us before I'll believe that kind of conspiracy theory.

The rival account, that Trump is in cahoots with the Russians, is simple and intuitive. He looks guilty as hell: the fact that he keeps lying about everything strengthens the initial impression. But sure, let's see what Mueller comes up with.

A lot of mainstream Republicans have hated Trump from the beginning, for both good and bad reasons. One of the bad reasons is that he's perceived as not hawkish enough.