True dat. Bad things are about to happen but Trump's also going to find that millions of Americans will not go along with his agenda.
I share your suspicion of the MSM but there's also reason for optimism. Both the NYT and the WaPo abandoned the useless "ping pong" approach to reporting events where newspapers just mindlessly repeat candidate claims. They began to note bluntly when Trump lied. Yes, it came relatively late in the campaign, but this marked a harbinger for a free and aggressive press. Even some of the electronic media surprised - Jake Tapper, in particular -demonstrated that, yes, TV talking heads can call BS.
Trump's taking possession of the WH is bad news but let's also remember that despite his electoral college victory, he still lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The Dems can build on that support. It's up to the leadership to offer a better alternative so that tens of millions of bamboozled Americans don't make the same mistake again. The challenge, obviously, is going to be the search to find new leaders with bold, smarter ideas that resonate.
I listened but I was very skeptical. The obvious ideological bias of Bush WH helped shape the conclusions that got made public. Obama's a pragmatist, not a Cold Warrior out to "get the Russkies."
Another point: Contrary to what Trump steadfastly maintains, it is very easy for cybersecurity forensics experts to identify the source of attacks. Let's not let ideology or bias get in the way here. We can only devise clear-headed policy based upon a clear-headed look at the evidence.
I disagree entirely. Obama is hardly "losing his marbles." US intelligence agencies are now of one mind about Russian interference in the elections. Some would like to "move on", whatever that means.
Sanctions are appropriate and the publicly-announced measures taken by Obama aren't severe. Let's hope that the unannounced measures are painful enough to deter future Kremlin meddling in US domestic affairs.
100000% with you on this, Juan. But the reality is that we won't get our wish. Too many Dems are too chickenshi* to play hardball, the Republican way. They still cling to the quaint notion that the loyal opposition ought to do what's in the national interest and cooperate with a president from the other party.
Of course, if the Republicans had acted appropriately during Obama's tenure, this country would have been so much better off.
Let's hope that you're right and that I'm wrong. I'd like nothing better than to give these jerks a taste of their own medicine.
Once they finish investigating his background, the Turks will know whether Altintas had ties to ISIS or other Islamist groups. But this much is clear: Putin's support of the Assad regime has embittered a lot of people in the region and it's hardly surprising when the chickens come home to roost. Lavrov was huffing & puffing for the cameras yesterday but the Russians can't bomb this problem away.
It doesn't help make a difference now but it's clear that Obama should have more forcefully engaged with the Saudis to try and dissuade them from exploiting the Syrian uprising as a pretext for furthering their Salafi agenda. On the whole, I think it was fine for Obama to conduct a more cautious foreign policy toward the Mideast given the Iraq disaster. But here's one case where he might have been able to help shape a better outcome for the Syrian people had he put things for sharply and more directly to the Saudis. Might they have still gone their own way? Perhaps but given Riyadh's nervousness about Iran, they still need our support.
A lot of Syrians died. A lot more will probably die - or get tortured - as Al Assad strengthens his grip on the country. Sad to see it but Syria is destined for a grim future.
It's not useful to demonize Putin. But as Obama finally acknowledged, the Kremlin's Numero Uno ordered a cyber hit on the US. I think Paul Krugman put it very nicely in his recent post:
I’m not talking about some kind of wild conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the obvious effect of two factors on voting: the steady drumbeat of Russia-contrived leaks about Democrats, and only Democrats, and the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.
Does anyone really doubt that these factors moved swing-state ballots by at least 1 percent? If they did, they made the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and therefore handed Mr. Trump the election, even though he received almost three million fewer total votes. Yes, the election was hacked.
Marshall doesn't make a compelling case. He seems more interested in whitewashing Assad's harsh domestic repression than in examining the assumptions underpinning the "family business," which is the Assad's family domination of Syria's government since the early 1970s. No, the New Yorker hasn't misreported Syria. In fact, their journalism has been extensive, nuanced and fair-minded.
True dat. Bad things are about to happen but Trump's also going to find that millions of Americans will not go along with his agenda.
I share your suspicion of the MSM but there's also reason for optimism. Both the NYT and the WaPo abandoned the useless "ping pong" approach to reporting events where newspapers just mindlessly repeat candidate claims. They began to note bluntly when Trump lied. Yes, it came relatively late in the campaign, but this marked a harbinger for a free and aggressive press. Even some of the electronic media surprised - Jake Tapper, in particular -demonstrated that, yes, TV talking heads can call BS.
Trump's taking possession of the WH is bad news but let's also remember that despite his electoral college victory, he still lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The Dems can build on that support. It's up to the leadership to offer a better alternative so that tens of millions of bamboozled Americans don't make the same mistake again. The challenge, obviously, is going to be the search to find new leaders with bold, smarter ideas that resonate.
I listened but I was very skeptical. The obvious ideological bias of Bush WH helped shape the conclusions that got made public. Obama's a pragmatist, not a Cold Warrior out to "get the Russkies."
Another point: Contrary to what Trump steadfastly maintains, it is very easy for cybersecurity forensics experts to identify the source of attacks. Let's not let ideology or bias get in the way here. We can only devise clear-headed policy based upon a clear-headed look at the evidence.
I disagree entirely. Obama is hardly "losing his marbles." US intelligence agencies are now of one mind about Russian interference in the elections. Some would like to "move on", whatever that means.
Sanctions are appropriate and the publicly-announced measures taken by Obama aren't severe. Let's hope that the unannounced measures are painful enough to deter future Kremlin meddling in US domestic affairs.
100000% with you on this, Juan. But the reality is that we won't get our wish. Too many Dems are too chickenshi* to play hardball, the Republican way. They still cling to the quaint notion that the loyal opposition ought to do what's in the national interest and cooperate with a president from the other party.
Of course, if the Republicans had acted appropriately during Obama's tenure, this country would have been so much better off.
Let's hope that you're right and that I'm wrong. I'd like nothing better than to give these jerks a taste of their own medicine.
"outside influence."
I would say so. How about the butchery of as many as 400,000 people in Syria. That would qualify as an "outside influence."
Once they finish investigating his background, the Turks will know whether Altintas had ties to ISIS or other Islamist groups. But this much is clear: Putin's support of the Assad regime has embittered a lot of people in the region and it's hardly surprising when the chickens come home to roost. Lavrov was huffing & puffing for the cameras yesterday but the Russians can't bomb this problem away.
It doesn't help make a difference now but it's clear that Obama should have more forcefully engaged with the Saudis to try and dissuade them from exploiting the Syrian uprising as a pretext for furthering their Salafi agenda. On the whole, I think it was fine for Obama to conduct a more cautious foreign policy toward the Mideast given the Iraq disaster. But here's one case where he might have been able to help shape a better outcome for the Syrian people had he put things for sharply and more directly to the Saudis. Might they have still gone their own way? Perhaps but given Riyadh's nervousness about Iran, they still need our support.
A lot of Syrians died. A lot more will probably die - or get tortured - as Al Assad strengthens his grip on the country. Sad to see it but Syria is destined for a grim future.
It's not useful to demonize Putin. But as Obama finally acknowledged, the Kremlin's Numero Uno ordered a cyber hit on the US. I think Paul Krugman put it very nicely in his recent post:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/useful-idiots-galore.html?_r=0
I’m not talking about some kind of wild conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the obvious effect of two factors on voting: the steady drumbeat of Russia-contrived leaks about Democrats, and only Democrats, and the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.
Does anyone really doubt that these factors moved swing-state ballots by at least 1 percent? If they did, they made the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and therefore handed Mr. Trump the election, even though he received almost three million fewer total votes. Yes, the election was hacked.
Marshall doesn't make a compelling case. He seems more interested in whitewashing Assad's harsh domestic repression than in examining the assumptions underpinning the "family business," which is the Assad's family domination of Syria's government since the early 1970s. No, the New Yorker hasn't misreported Syria. In fact, their journalism has been extensive, nuanced and fair-minded.