Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

[Cain]

Possibly but not necessarily.  A terrorist attack in London or Berlin could create a climate of fear akin to the Paris attacks and thus shift people's thinking closer towards Trump's "register all Muslim" notions regardless of how it is handled.  A global economic crisis could take a while to play out, but again could significantly work to the favour of Trump's protectionist policies ("fine companies who send American jobs abroad").  Any crisis in the South China Sea will benefit Republicans who have been talking up a tougher stance against China.  And so on and so forth.

[Junkenstein]

Hey Cain,

Assuming that who-ever get in will immediately choose to fuck with foreign policy, what are the likely results on that front at the moment?

I'm guessing Hilary is inclined to continue to Bush/Obama ride, Sanders somewhat less so.

Trump probably wants to give various people nukes as an excuse to then attack them with nukes. Or something equally dumb. I don't know, that's why I'm asking you. I'm guessing the immediate few months will be a shitshow regardless of who takes it.

[Cain]

Clinton will be Obama+, for people who like how Obama conducted himself, but likely with a more strident tone and more obviously at the forefront (America always has been, even under Obama, but Obama made far less show of it, which upsets some people).  Relations with Russia will be strained, the "Asian Pivot" will likely continue, a harder line will be taken on Iran.

Trump's a weird one.  While relations with Europe and China will hit an unprecedented low, Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Putin.  Putin has apparently reciprocated, but I suspect it's because Putin knows he could manipulate Trump and play him like a fiddle.  A lot of Trump's base also have weirdly positive views of Russia - though this isn't unusual nowadays on the alt-right - Russia has put a lot of effort towards courting paleoconservative and libertarian groups in America, and Neo-Nazi and right populist groups in Europe.  I swear, 20 years from now, we'll look at this as a new Cold War, only with Russia supporting weird rightwingers instead of Communist movements.

[Junkenstein]

It is somewhat strange looking at the media reporting of Russia over the past few months. I've seen roughly similar numbers or "Good" and "bad" tales.

The Good ones seem to mainly consist of "Russia donates dog to blind man" or such. The bad more along the line of "Russia treats X group horribly".

I assume this somewhat polarized reporting is because news outlets don't know what the party line about Russia will be in a year so they're covering all bases.

I've not seen much from any candidates about the Ukraine and how they intended to deal with that clusterfuck so I'm again assuming that this is not to be talked about until the new boss is in place.

[Cain]

Russia's a useful foil for criticising current western leaders.  Putin is manly, decisive and powerful, while the west is emasculated, weakened and striven by discord (ignore that almost exactly the opposite is actually true).  In particular, those who want a harder line on Syria and Islamic extremists, contrast Russia's intervention with our own, a line that is repeated by Russia's pet supporters in Europe, like UKIP.  Redditors practically cream their pants when talking about Russian "resolve" in the War on Terrorism.

Few of them seem to understand that Russia Today is a propaganda outlet, and that Russia has a "stable" of "experts", almost all far-right lunatics associated with the Eurasianist movement and prolific writers besides, it calls upon to legitimate its actions in the alternative media.

http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/pro-russian-network-behind-anti.html

Kovalenko's task was simple: by giving support to Yushchenko under the Nazi-like flags, he was expected to discredit the democratic candidate in the eyes of Western observers. Luckily for Yushchenko, however, the Western media largely did not buy into that frame-up and ignored it.

But some Western organisations did not. One of those was the eccentric - and apparently non-existent today - British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) not affiliated, despite the name, to the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. The BHHRG was notorious for claiming that elections in authoritarian Belarus met democratic standards, that Latvia had not been occupied by, but incorporated in, the Soviet Union, that the Romani people of the Czech Republic did not suffer from racism as generally reported, etc. On 24 November 2004, the BHHRG published a report "Shadow of Anti-Semitism over Ukraine's Disputed Election" in which the authors concluded:

With friends like these [i.e. Eduard Kovalenko and some others] Mr Yushchenko may feel he has all the People Power he needs to seize the presidency, but should OSCE observers, European parliamentarians, Colin Powell and George W. Bush be undiluted in endorsing a candidate with backing from neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers?

One of the first web-sites to re-publish the report was the very same Centre for Research on Globalization which has recently re-published Eric Draitser's piece on Ukraine to which I referred in the very beginning. Another web-site that re-published the BHHRG report, this time in Russian, was the web-site of the Historical Perspective Foundation headed by Russian national-conservative Natalya Narochnitskaya. Since 2008, she has been heading the Paris-based Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, together with British eurosceptic journalist John Laughland as director of studies. Laughland, described as a "right-wing anti-state libertarian and isolationist", was one of the trustees of the BHHRG.

At least three people who were associated with the BHHRG joined the US-based Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity: Daniel McAdams (Executive Director of the Institute), Mark Almond (former chairman of the BHHRG) and John Laughland. The web-site of the Ron Paul Institute is full of misleading articles on Euromaidan associating it with the extreme right, and various drivels by Mark Almond (who likes to present himself as "professor of history at Oxford University", but does not even work at Oxford) are particularly prominent (see for example his "Ukrainian Opposition and the West 'Playing with Fire Siding With Extreme Nationalists'").

The Canada-based Centre for Research on Globalization is also interesting. It was founded and is now headed by Michel Chossudovsky; among the Centre's contributors are Neil Clark, Mahdi D. Nazemroaya and William Engdahl. Chossudovsky, Nazemroaya and Engdahl are members of the scientific committee of the Italian journal Geopolitica, which also includes John Laughland and Natalya Narochnitskaya. Geopolitica is edited by Tiberio Graziani, a fervent advocate of the Eurasian cooperation and a member of the High Council of the International Eurasian Movement led by Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin. In 2008, Dugin called for the Russian occupation of Georgia, and even made a trip to South Ossetia together with his followers from the Eurasian Youth Union.

Geopolitica itself is an off-shoot from the Italian extreme right journal Eurasia, Rivista di Studi Geopolitici, published and edited by Italian Nazi-Maoist Claudio Mutti. The scientific board of Eurasia includes Aleksandr Dugin and William Engdahl. In the early January, Engdahl published a piece titled "The Belgrade US-Financed Training Group Behind the Carefully-Orchestrated Kiev Protests".

All the above-mentioned people and groups form - apparently a small - part of the wide network which is aimed at promoting anti-Western, pro-Russian and pro-Eurasianist ideas in the EU and the US and Canada. Moreover, the following people from this network are official regular contributors to the Kremlin-sponsored Russia Today (RT) TV:

    Michel Chossudovsky (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)
    Neil Clark
    William Engdahl (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica, Eurasia)
    Eric Draitser (Centre for Research on Globalization, Stop Imperialism)
    Daniel McAdams (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Mahdi D. Nazemroaya (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)


And these authors are in the pool of political commentators of yet another Kremlin-sponsored media service, the Voice of Russia:

    Mark Almond (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Michel Chossudovsky (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)
    Neil Clark
    Eric Draitser (Centre for Research on Globalization, Stop Imperialism)
    Aleksandr Dugin (International Eurasian Movement, Eurasia)
    William Engdahl (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica, Eurasia)
    Tiberio Graziani (Geopolitica)
    John Laughland (ex-BHHRG, Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Daniel McAdams (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Natalya Narochnitskaya (Institute of Democracy and Cooperation)


The Voice of Russia's offshoot in France is ProRussia TV which is linked to the French far right National Front and headed by Gilles Arnaud, a former National Front councilor in the Upper Normandy. The National Front's leader Marine Le Pen has received a warm welcome in Russia last summer. Then, in particular, she met Vice-Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who helped found the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation when he was Russia's ambassador to NATO (2008-2011). It was during Rogozin's service in the Russian Mission to NATO when Ukraine and Georgia were denied membership in this organisation.

[Brother Mythos]

HRC received a coveted endorsement in Nevada.

Here's the link:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/15/hookers-for-hillary-clinton-nevada-caucuses-bernie-sanders-moonlite-bunny-ranch

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Possibly but not necessarily.  A terrorist attack in London or Berlin could create a climate of fear akin to the Paris attacks and thus shift people's thinking closer towards Trump's "register all Muslim" notions regardless of how it is handled.  A global economic crisis could take a while to play out, but again could significantly work to the favour of Trump's protectionist policies ("fine companies who send American jobs abroad").  Any crisis in the South China Sea will benefit Republicans who have been talking up a tougher stance against China.  And so on and so forth.

I'm not even sure that's necessary.  I mean, there's blatant fascism on the march, and the response of a good chunk of the left is either to blubber that voting doesn't matter, or to go full tumblrina on everything left of center, because it's easier than shouting down brownshirts.

I am of the opinion that no matter who wins the dem primary, the left will flush its spine down the toilet, devour itself, and we'll be dealing with anti-science, anti-everyone who isn't a white protestant male scumbag for however long it lasts, and we'll all be drinking Flint water for the rest of our lives.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm in this weird position where I really like Sanders as a senator and as a political personality (how much of that personality is genuine and how much is interns memeing it up I neither know nor care), but I'm somewhat concerned about what a Sanders presidency would mean. Maybe you get all the Bernie Bros to show up for the midterms and give him a legislative branch willing to get shit done on some of his progressive goals, but how realistic is that? And while the right hatehatehates Hillary, I think she might get more done in office, and maybe more of it would be positive. Or maybe she'd facilitate the ongoing slide to the right and side with the hyper-rich on every issue. I really don't know.

Sanders seems like he would be more electable in the general, he's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him (misplaced or not) and enthusiasm means high turnout, which bodes well for democrats. Everyone keeps questioning his viability in the general, but the right has been preparing for a run against Hillary since Bill left office and she's kind of a "feminist of a certain age," that is, someone who had to take on a brutally sexist system by learning how to play as dirty as the boys. Without women who were willing to sacrifice everything like that, the tumblrinas of today wouldn't have the room to be as hardline about their own ethics, but it makes her a little distasteful. Then again, someone who isn't capable of some heinous shit probably isn't capable of being president in the first place.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by hardline Sanders supporters, and I fell out of love with Clinton a long time ago, but I'm still not feeling the Bern. The whole situation has me deeply nervous for the future of the country.

[Cain]

I think, while definitely not as skilled a political infighter as Clinton, who is pretty much legendary tier at this stage, people do underestimate how much political savvy Sanders has (note the date).

I still think, even with this, he definitely won't have the advantages Clinton would - being a party insider, being far more central within the party etc, and how the mid-terms are handled would be a critical factor.  But I do think people underestimate him on that front, and he may be capable of quite a bit more than people think.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I think, while definitely not as skilled a political infighter as Clinton, who is pretty much legendary tier at this stage, people do underestimate how much political savvy Sanders has (note the date).

I still think, even with this, he definitely won't have the advantages Clinton would - being a party insider, being far more central within the party etc, and how the mid-terms are handled would be a critical factor.  But I do think people underestimate him on that front, and he may be capable of quite a bit more than people think.

There's also the cost of losing Bernie in the senate. We could hope that Vermont would put up a similarly progressive person to replace him, but I was here when Kennedy's seat was filled by Scott fucking Brown, so I'm a little skittish there.

[Cain]

I think, while definitely not as skilled a political infighter as Clinton, who is pretty much legendary tier at this stage, people do underestimate how much political savvy Sanders has (note the date).

I still think, even with this, he definitely won't have the advantages Clinton would - being a party insider, being far more central within the party etc, and how the mid-terms are handled would be a critical factor.  But I do think people underestimate him on that front, and he may be capable of quite a bit more than people think.

There's also the cost of losing Bernie in the senate. We could hope that Vermont would put up a similarly progressive person to replace him, but I was here when Kennedy's seat was filled by Scott fucking Brown, so I'm a little skittish there.

Yeah, true, I can see that being a major concern.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm in this weird position where I really like Sanders as a senator and as a political personality (how much of that personality is genuine and how much is interns memeing it up I neither know nor care), but I'm somewhat concerned about what a Sanders presidency would mean. Maybe you get all the Bernie Bros to show up for the midterms and give him a legislative branch willing to get shit done on some of his progressive goals, but how realistic is that? And while the right hatehatehates Hillary, I think she might get more done in office, and maybe more of it would be positive. Or maybe she'd facilitate the ongoing slide to the right and side with the hyper-rich on every issue. I really don't know.

Sanders seems like he would be more electable in the general, he's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him (misplaced or not) and enthusiasm means high turnout, which bodes well for democrats. Everyone keeps questioning his viability in the general, but the right has been preparing for a run against Hillary since Bill left office and she's kind of a "feminist of a certain age," that is, someone who had to take on a brutally sexist system by learning how to play as dirty as the boys. Without women who were willing to sacrifice everything like that, the tumblrinas of today wouldn't have the room to be as hardline about their own ethics, but it makes her a little distasteful. Then again, someone who isn't capable of some heinous shit probably isn't capable of being president in the first place.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by hardline Sanders supporters, and I fell out of love with Clinton a long time ago, but I'm still not feeling the Bern. The whole situation has me deeply nervous for the future of the country.

I have never "felt the bern", and that phrase gives me hives.  Seriously, it makes me want to punch America.  But he's still the closest thing to a socialist, so I'm going to vote for him.  When he loses the primary, I'm going to vote for Hillary, because she is my second choice.  She is my second choice because her last name is neither Trump nor Cruz.

And I hardly think it's fair at all to blame the tumblrina's on Clinton's hard work, any more than Sanders should be blamed for the tribly & fake katana set.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm in this weird position where I really like Sanders as a senator and as a political personality (how much of that personality is genuine and how much is interns memeing it up I neither know nor care), but I'm somewhat concerned about what a Sanders presidency would mean. Maybe you get all the Bernie Bros to show up for the midterms and give him a legislative branch willing to get shit done on some of his progressive goals, but how realistic is that? And while the right hatehatehates Hillary, I think she might get more done in office, and maybe more of it would be positive. Or maybe she'd facilitate the ongoing slide to the right and side with the hyper-rich on every issue. I really don't know.

Sanders seems like he would be more electable in the general, he's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him (misplaced or not) and enthusiasm means high turnout, which bodes well for democrats. Everyone keeps questioning his viability in the general, but the right has been preparing for a run against Hillary since Bill left office and she's kind of a "feminist of a certain age," that is, someone who had to take on a brutally sexist system by learning how to play as dirty as the boys. Without women who were willing to sacrifice everything like that, the tumblrinas of today wouldn't have the room to be as hardline about their own ethics, but it makes her a little distasteful. Then again, someone who isn't capable of some heinous shit probably isn't capable of being president in the first place.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by hardline Sanders supporters, and I fell out of love with Clinton a long time ago, but I'm still not feeling the Bern. The whole situation has me deeply nervous for the future of the country.

I have never "felt the bern", and that phrase gives me hives.  Seriously, it makes me want to punch America.  But he's still the closest thing to a socialist, so I'm going to vote for him.  When he loses the primary, I'm going to vote for Hillary, because she is my second choice.  She is my second choice because her last name is neither Trump nor Cruz.

And I hardly think it's fair at all to blame the tumblrina's on Clinton's hard work, any more than Sanders should be blamed for the tribly & fake katana set.

Wasn't meant as a blame thing. We've got a whole generation of women who've grown up expecting to be treated like goddamned human beings and getting confused and enraged when things don't work the way they should, which I think is exactly the right direction for things to be going. Obviously, Clinton isn't the only one who fought that fight, but she was part of it and I think she deserves some credit for that. Tumblrinas are just the loudest faction of the "of course we're equal!" front, but I probably shouldn't have used them for shorthand there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Tumblrinas are just the loudest faction of the "of course we're equal!" front, but I probably shouldn't have used them for shorthand there.

Here is where we disagree.  Equality does not even seem to be on the agenda of tumblrinas.  Spend enough time under the blanket, you go full Garbo, doesn't matter who you are.

So while I agree that Clinton did a great deal - just by example - for feminism, I don't think smearing her with tumblr is very fair.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Tumblrinas are just the loudest faction of the "of course we're equal!" front, but I probably shouldn't have used them for shorthand there.

Here is where we disagree.  Equality does not even seem to be on the agenda of tumblrinas.  Spend enough time under the blanket, you go full Garbo, doesn't matter who you are.

So while I agree that Clinton did a great deal - just by example - for feminism, I don't think smearing her with tumblr is very fair.

Point taken and conceded.