Help Elok understand the ongoing Russia ... thingy

[Elok]

What Russian links? Your link is about Dutch intelligence infiltrating the Russian hackers. Not CA. Their Russian links (from the info you've given me thus far) appear to constitute dealing with Trump (who in turn talks to Russians) and Assange. CA then offered to ... organize, or analyze, I suppose, the leaked info, because they were already working for a scuzzy campaign so why not milk the other end of the cow too I guess. Wiki says they're a British group based on some non-Russian guy's research. The only Russian links appear to be via Trump & Assange.

[Elok]

This is a massive difference.

If democracy is in fact for sale, we might as well have a free market.

[Aeson]

As for real implications ... why is Trump refusing sanctions on Russia when congress has overwhelming support for them? It's one thing if Trump wasn't a sanctions kind of guy, but he's about as pro-sanctions as you can get. It lends credence to the possibility that the Russians have some form of control over Trump, or that Trump promised no sanctions in exchange for help winning the election. Having POTUS subservient to a foreign power is not "ho hum" stuff.

[Aeson]

If democracy is in fact for sale, we might as well have a free market.

No. While the current system is broken, it can be broken far worse than it is by your suggestion. Domestics have a vested interest in the continuance, affluence, and stability of the system. Foreign powers can have the exact opposite interest. It's the same reason we allow citizens to vote, not foreigners.

[Jon Miller]

What Russian links? Your link is about Dutch intelligence infiltrating the Russian hackers. Not CA. Their Russian links (from the info you've given me thus far) appear to constitute dealing with Trump (who in turn talks to Russians) and Assange. CA then offered to ... organize, or analyze, I suppose, the leaked info, because they were already working for a scuzzy campaign so why not milk the other end of the cow too I guess. Wiki says they're a British group based on some non-Russian guy's research. The only Russian links appear to be via Trump & Assange.

Assuage released emails/information acquired by Russian (as in, employed by the Russian state and member of the GRU/etc).

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...essions-214868

JM

[Elok]

Yes, I get that. Does this company have no other clients? If you're saying Trump employed them first, so Hillary didn't want to, I can see that, but if they're that good (independent of the scuzzy dataset they worked on in this case), then it sounds like Trump made the right choice in this case. Before Trump hired them, they were presumably untainted by "Russian connections," and Hillary was free to hire them, no? As to whether they are that good, beats me.

[Elok]

As for real implications ... why is Trump refusing sanctions on Russia when congress has overwhelming support for them? It's one thing if Trump wasn't a sanctions kind of guy, but he's about as pro-sanctions as you can get. It lends credence to the possibility that the Russians have some form of control over Trump, or that Trump promised no sanctions in exchange for help winning the election. Having POTUS subservient to a foreign power is not "ho hum" stuff.

Because he's not a rational actor and never has been? Russians were nice to him--they hacked the mean woman--and he's basically psychologically incapable of acting against his flatterers. He couldn't disavow the Charlottesville Nazis, and they're fricking poison. But they like him, and people who like him have good judgment and are good guys. Et cetera.

[Aeson]

Russians were nice to him--they hacked the mean woman--and he's basically psychologically incapable of acting against his flatterers.

If true, that would be even more damning than if he was just upholding a secret campaign promise to the Russians about sanctions. At least that would be indemnity limited to a relatively small aspect of the job. Your claim though would mean that Trump has basically become a Russian agent, placing Russian interests above the interests of the US.

[ZEE]

I am only poasting in this thrade to see if Elok still has me on his ignore list since I stopped calling him a nerd. If he doesn't respond I will give it a few months and try to get his attention again to see if he removed me or not.

[Jon Miller]

Yes, I get that. Does this company have no other clients? If you're saying Trump employed them first, so Hillary didn't want to, I can see that, but if they're that good (independent of the scuzzy dataset they worked on in this case), then it sounds like Trump made the right choice in this case. Before Trump hired them, they were presumably untainted by "Russian connections," and Hillary was free to hire them, no? As to whether they are that good, beats me.

The company was created by Robert Mercer who was the main funder of Bannon/Brietbart and is probably more extreme then the Koch brothers (he has been behind this alt-right).

No one believes in the free market enough to hire the company of your main opposition.

JM

[pchang]

Mercer is not free market enough to not sabotage a Democratic customer.

[pchang]

Because he's not a rational actor and never has been? Russians were nice to him--they hacked the mean woman--and he's basically psychologically incapable of acting against his flatterers. He couldn't disavow the Charlottesville Nazis, and they're fricking poison. But they like him, and people who like him have good judgment and are good guys. Et cetera.

So, Trump does not have a secret deal with Putin. He is just so easily manipulated with flattery, that any foreign leader can pretty much get Trump to do anything they want with enough kissing up?

[Elok]

Of course. I've said before that Trump is a man of no perceptible virtues; he has no (apparent) good points as a human being, only character flaws. It's really quite remarkable, and the best thing you can say for it is that the bad things sometimes neutralize each other by crippling his ability for really decisive action. Really, the vulnerability to flattery is almost a high point by his standards, as it's as close as he gets to loyalty. I imagine his Kremlin dossier has big marker on it: "Utter jackass, too inept to even be used safely." Anyway, yes, it would be terrific to eject him from office. But it's hardly a secret, by this point, that he's catastrophically defective, nor is it technically a crime to be incompetent.

Who was it that said "never attribute to malice what can be more easily ascribed to stupidity"?

[Aeson]

Many times stupid people break the law unwittingly, or unabashedly think they can get away with anything. Thus why Trump's lawyers don't want him speaking to Mueller.

[Dinner]

If it's that bloody easy, why couldn't Hillary do it? It's not like Russia is a fantastically rich country, or poor Russian people have some Mephistophelian insight into the American psyche.

For better or for worse Hillary didn't have a state sponsored troll army to spread deliberate misinformation, Hillary was not illegally hacking her opponent, also Hillary was always a terrible candidate thus why I voted 3rd party instead of her.