We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, July 22. 2018
Clapper: Obama Was Behind The Whole Thing
That makes sense. This is a very big deal. Watch the MSM ignore it.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
For God's sake, don't go look at comments - entire asylums full of wackos are signing in to leave their collective scat.
What I have been saying for months, to the Z-bot's continual attacks. It's obvious, given Obama's last minute executive order trying to legalize what the enemies of our country and of the incoming president were doing. Also the meeting between Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac.
I'm sure the Z-Bot will be here any minute with a programmed response.
See also Susan Rice's 'He told us to do everything by the book' memo written as Trump was being inaugurated.
All of it would be understandable, and forgivable despite its breaking the rules if Trump really were Hitler or Stalin, or even a Pinochet or Winnie Mandela. However, it really isn't very difficult to step back and say Is it possible I am exaggerating his badness because he is my political opponent? Might the long-term repercussions of breaking these rules be so dire that I should hesitate? Am I so invested in one outcome that I cannot see other possibilities? Most professions require this sort of standing back and taking stock in the normal course of events: doctors do it, prosecutors do it, policemen do it, managers and investors and coaches and clergy and parents and salesmen and counselors all have to be self-critical.
How much more, then, when the job is by definition a holding of the public trust? It is not that the public does not understand their motives and the difficulty of their jobs. That is exactly what the public does understand: They were worried that Trump is very, very bad. We get it. But the next step of contemplating what one will do, what is and is not just, or even-handed, or precedent-setting is very simple, and we teach it to children. Stop and look at yourself and your own motives. They did not do this. They cannot master simple moralities, yet expect us to believe they handle complicated ones well.
Respectfully, I disagree. Assuming all this is true and if there were a neutral forum for responding, I think they would have averred that they weighed each of these actions carefully and decided it was best to proceed. The word that comes to mind is 'hubris'. After 8 years of steady adulation from the pet media echo chamber, ticker tape and accolades from other adoring world powers and authorities like the UN, the Nobel Prize committees, etc etc, the only conclusion to be reached was that they were indeed all brilliant and the best that history had yet to offer. I truly think the former administration would say this with a straight face.
Scott Adam's hypothesis that 'we are two groups in the same movie theater, watching the same screen, and seeing different movies' cuts two ways. I don't have to interpret the Obama administration as being inherently evil just to conclude that they were hopelessly misguided and deeply flawed in their thinking, and nominally guilty of believing their own brand of bullshit.
You guys are really out there. There was evidence that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. Obama initiated an intelligence investigation of Russian activities. That assessment determined that Russia did, indeed, interfere in the U.S. election. Initiating that assessment was entirely appropriate.
Trump adamantly rejected the conclusions of the assessment, then begrudgingly accepted them, and recently said it is a "big hoax".
Trump: So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election. Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign? Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!
In fact, Obama initiated a counterintelligence investigation. Oh, and he did tell Trump. You guys are echoing and amplifying lies. The damage to the U.S. will be extensive.
No...the damage to this country is being done by the people who are refusing to accept the results of an election and are doing extraordinary things to overturn it and delegitimize a sitting administration.
That is a genie that will be very difficult to put back in the bottle.
Whether you like the current administration or not if you can't acknowledge that you're either part of the "resistance" or not paying attention.
SK: No...the damage to this country is being done by the people who are refusing to accept the results of an election and are doing extraordinary things to overturn it and delegitimize a sitting administration.
Trump is the President of the United States. Russia interfered in the election. Both things can be true, and both things are true.
Trump is the President of the United States. Trump sides with authoritarians over democratic allies. Both things can be true, and both things are true.
Huh? That's very, very weak for you.
Like his tactics or not, Trump has gotten more action toward paying for their own defense out of the EU than the past three admins did, and properly chided the Union for doing energy business with the Russians which business PERSONALLY enriches Putin (his alleged BFF). We SHOULD be hard on people/countries who should know to do better and for whom we have high expectations. I'll take Trump's realistic dealings with authoritarians over the naivety "I can be more flexible" Obama showed any day.
A comprehensive view of the entire topic, which is a simply enormous one, completely refutes the Clattering Soros-Schlansky Robot(s). It(s) is simply incapable of either that breadth or objectivity.
It(s) is incapable of evident reflection and cannot admit error. It's one trick is monotonically repeating a specific Google narrative, day in and day out.
Maybe reconsider feeding it...
It should also be pointed out that the "flexibility" the Infallible One was asking Medvedev to "transmit to Vladimir" was the flexibility to bargain on the defense of Europe, our allies.
Reconsider feeding it? Most trolls, true. But the zak troll, Nah. The easily predictable Zak absurdity is counter-productive to itself. It is the trolling purpose to leave uncorrected memes lying around for the unwary to assume.
Besides, the zaks need the (soros?) money badly, or they wouldn't humiliate themselves so thoroughly.
SK: Like his tactics or not, Trump has gotten more action toward paying for their own defense out of the EU than the past three admins did
Deflection. The topic was Russian interference.
In any case, Europe merely reiterated its commitment to the Wales Summit Declaration, agreed to during the Obama Administration.
Risible. Actually it was a direct response...to your deflection.
You are off your game today.
Who said that nobody believes the Russians meddled with our election? Anybody? Anybody? Zack that's too obvious a straw man even for you. Everybody understands the Russian routinely meddle with our elections - just like we do, with theirs. That's what spies do.
You remind me of the similar tired, clumsy, accusative arguments with Global Warming: "You don't believe our computer models showing the earth will bake itself to a crisp with rising sea levels in 10 years because of hydrocarbon use and man's overpopulation!!! You're denying that climate changes! You're a denier~!!
Aggie: Who said that nobody believes the Russians meddled with our election?
Don't know. Who?
We said that Trump has vacillated on the topic, most recently saying it is a "big hoax".
Aggie: Everybody understands the Russian routinely meddle with our elections - just like we do, with theirs. That's what spies do.
Uh, no. The usual definition of a spy is someone who secretly collects information about enemies or competitors. The Russians did more than collect information, but have engaged in cyberattacks across the West.
"...engaged in cyberattacks across the West."
Another thing spies do. These days one of the main things spies do. Actually the biggest tool they have.
You should really educate yourself about this stuff before declaiming on it it public.
SK: Another thing spies do.
The difference between acting merely as a spy or as an operative or saboteur is profound in this context.
It is amazing that you are justifying Russian interference in the U.S. election.
Zzzz: You guys are really out there.
We cannot explain why the FBI lied because we believed in them after we didn't believe them. See?
Besides who are you going to believe, us kiddiez or your own damn lyin' eyes?
Anyway, anything can be true, right? Right???
From Clapper : that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation
Half truths from you as usual. Obama specifically avoided confronting the Russians about their disinformation activities in 2016 until after the election. The investigation that was initiated was specifically against Trump or Clapper would not have drawn a line between it and the Mueller investigation.
You are attempting to conflate agreement that Russia conducted disinformation activities with agreement that Trump not only benefited but coordinated with those activities.
Both things can be true but only one is.
Trump's the President - that can't be disputed at this point.
Russia interfered - but their influence was miniscule compared to the massive disgust against running the kleptocraptic Hillary, causing Trump's EC landslide.
All the tricks were pulled to try to delegitimize the election - and they're failing.
Christopher B: Obama specifically avoided confronting the Russians about their disinformation activities in 2016 until after the election.
That is incorrect. Before the election, the Obama Administration privately tried to warn off the Russians. When that didn't work, they released information to reporters. As the activities continued, they made an official accusation: "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
Christopher B: The investigation that was initiated was specifically against Trump
That is correct. The investigation concerned Russian interference in the election, along with any Russian links or coordination with the Trump campaign.
Christopher B: or Clapper would not have drawn a line between it and the Mueller investigation.
One thing leads to another.
How does losing feel?
Your made up narrative is unraveling by the day, kiddiez.
Ignore it if you like but the truth will come out.
Chrisopher B: You are attempting to conflate agreement that Russia conducted disinformation activities with agreement that Trump not only benefited but coordinated with those activities.
That is Trump's conflation, not ours.
They didn't act like people with clear consciences, that's for sure. Frantic cover-up activity is never a good sign. If they'd really thought the Steele Dossier was creditable, for instance, I'm sure they know how to write up a FISA application so as to highlight its salient characteristics instead of burying them. But they judged their audience well, obviously. Most of the press are simply yawning, the attitude apparently being that Trump is ipso facto evil, therefore anything goes. Not very bright people.
Always follow the time line (something the kiddiez intentionally fail to do).
The real reason for the depth and intensity of the rage from the left isn't just because they lost the election, you know. It's because they lost in spite of the fact that they were fighting hard with every unethical, dirty trick that they could muster, and they still lost. That's what's becoming increasingly clear. The rage and fury is because they still can't believe that they lost by fighting dirty. That hasn't happened before on something of this scale - it's usually a sure thing. Hence the shock and outrage.
Another in the time line (the kiddie intentionally "forget").
Yep, kiddiez, we are really out there.
Now back to your sandbox.
... Here it is Monday - and the MSM reporting on Clapper saying Obama was behind it all the way
Big Story on USSA Today though is amazingly a Trump headline about THREATENING poor little Iran
I consider conflation to be a form of deception, though possibly it's just sloppiness or ignorance. In this Russian blather the reporting frequently conflates several actions into one.
1.Did Russian agents attempt to hack into and manipulate election results at the local, state, and federal level? I don't doubt that they, among others, have tried, but I think the difficulties of doing this systematically and effectively are insurmountable, given how cobbled together our system is and the lack of standardization from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To me, this possibility is the most alarming and criminal.
2. Did Russians try to manipulate voter opinion to influence the election toward a specific party or candidate? I remain unconvinced. Did the Russians try to sow discord and discredit the American government and electoral process, via social media? I suppose that they did and that they have always done so, but that frankly it amounts to white noise. I suspect that it was a waste of time and money. It does not rise to a level of concern on my part.
3. Did Russian agents, among others, hack into or try to hack into the major players, like the RNC and the DNC? I'm open to this possibility and it seems criminal to me. I don't see what it has to do with Donald Trump or how he benefitted.
Ironically, it is our own government and the Globalist, Political, Media Complex that has undermined the government and cast the most doubt on the electoral process. Intentional or not, I don't know. Hubris, CYA, witch hunt or mob mentality(peer pressure)? I agree with both AVI and Aggie. What I find the most stunning is the exposure of so many people, in the media and the political class as clowns and the utter lack of professionalism and ethics.
Exasperated: 1.Did Russian agents attempt to hack into and manipulate election results at the local, state, and federal level?
There is no evidence that Russians changed any votes, but they did intrude into election systems. In the next election, they or other actors could, for instance, change registration records causing mass confusion at voting stations. In close contests, this could be decisive, and could throw into doubt any election results.
Exasperated: 2. Did Russians try to manipulate voter opinion to influence the election toward a specific party or candidate?
The Russians clearly tried to damage Clinton and the Democrats. Internal Russian communications confirm this. A case would be where they disseminated false news that the Pope had endorsed Trump. Using social media, they targeted Catholic areas in swing states. This could have kept Clinton supporters from the polls, or encouraged fence-sitters to vote for Trump. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were very close and have large Catholic populations. Another tactic was sowing social discord in black communities to suppress voter turnout.
Exasperated: 3. Did Russian agents, among others, hack into or try to hack into the major players, like the RNC and the DNC?.
There is no reasonable doubt that Russian agents illegally hacked into Democrat internal emails, then released the information for maximum political damage.
Still making it up as you go along, hey kiddiez?