Most of the TwitterSpooks are all about how this doesn't happen without the explicit approval and involvement of the GRU, knowing full well that any sanctions we levee against Belarus but not against Russia will drive Belarus further into Russia's sphere. One of the points Eric Haseltine really tried to drive home was the fact that there's absolutely nothing stopping Russia from all sorts of hijinks when they literally face no consequences ever. What did they suffer from fucking overthrowing the 2016 election? Fuckall. What did they suffer from poisoning Sergei Skripal? Nothing. This is the effective range of a BGM-109 Tomahawk missile centered on Minsk. There are four air force bases in there. Just sayin'.
Well, to be pedantic (I'm sorry!), Russia didn't "overthrow" the 2016 election, but they certainly did everything they could to ensure the worst possible candidate (ever?) was elected, via disinformation campaigns and microtargetted advertising. I don't question the 2016 election integrity, as there is still no evidence I've heard of suggesting Russia managed to penetrate any voting systems and change a single vote directly themselves. But I definitely question the electoral influence campaigns and ongoing alignment of GOP talking points with what the Kremlin would want to cause maximum US social implosion and infighting. I love rewinding to republican criticisms of Obama's (agreeably) too-soft response to the annexation of Crimea. There is no ideological consistency required when a party's media apparatus is 100% unified under the singular goal of retaining power. In fact, all of Trump's fellating of Putin was cool, guys. "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" t-shirts for all! Anyway, I guess the optimal course of action would be to show evidence of the GRU rubber stamping this, and then slap sanctions on both, yeah. Hopefully the intel community can do it without exposing sources and methods. Why isn't Ukraine in NATO, again? That should have been part of the response to Crimea.
Welllll let's talk about that pedantry. 'cuz Mike Flynn didn't exactly plead innocent. And the Okham's Razor on Melania is that she's a Russian asset. And Trump has been in bed with the Mafiya for 30 years, and the Mafiya are the KGB. No one would argue that the US didn't overthrow Mossadegh, which we did by funding agitators and exercising influence. No one would argue that the US didn't overthrow Allende. Now - what's the difference here, that our election wasn't contested? Our election also wasn't democratic so the contest happens a little differently. From a geopolitical standpoint, influence campaigns with specific intelligence actions totally count as election interference. "Overthrow" is more of a pejorative than a technical term but I don't think I'm out of line using it here. Just because we don't know the official FSB name for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think because we're in the "you don't get to join unless you change your name to North Macedonia" level of seriousness at the moment. We just spent four years with the United States arguing that NATO had no reason to exist; it's gonna take some time to get people used to the Iron Curtain again.Well, to be pedantic (I'm sorry!), Russia didn't "overthrow" the 2016 election, but they certainly did everything they could to ensure the worst possible candidate (ever?) was elected, via disinformation campaigns and microtargetted advertising.
Why isn't Ukraine in NATO, again? That should have been part of the response to Crimea.
|Mike Flynn
Do you have any suggestions as to who the pictured man is? The one captioned as Mike Flynn? Yikes, Independent. "Minnamar": What do you give as the odds that Flynn (or anyone cheering) know what actually happened in Myanmar, or even knew what the hell "Minnamar" was referring to? Apparently it's a recent QAnon talking point to discuss the anti-democracy Myanmar military coup in a positive light, and suggest America should do the same thing to reinstate Donald Trump. It's not even clear to me, given the onstage discussion happening during "Mr. Simple Marine" 's question that Flynn even processed the question fully. No surprise: Liz Cheney is the only republican so far to condemn this shit so far. The lines of ignorance and malice are perhaps irretrievably entangled in the GOP media enclave.
I'm very confused my that video. If you wouldn't have added that bit about QAnon liking the military coup, I would have thought that the guy was asking as a warning, as in, "There but for the grace of god go we." Flynn's response is also weird, as if he doesn't really get what is being asked. At first maybe he's going to say it could happen, but then realizes the crowd will cheer if he says it should happen. Not sure this is something to really get our hackles up over. (But I'm also not sure it isn't.)
Jason Stanley argued in How Fascism Works that fundamentally, Fascism is a substitution of identity for ideology, "we are" for "we believe." Fascism doesn't absolutely require a charismatic populist at the heart of it... but it doesn't hurt? Makes things... a whole lot more durable? We lucked out big time in that the black heart of American fascism is a lazy, feckless aristocrat past his prime who is too venal to look beyond the rallies. If George Wallace had the chance to run in 2016 we woulda been so fukt.
My wife read How Fascism Works last year. We talked about the GOP's current brand. And talked. And talked. Still do. While someone like Wallace can give well-enunciated, methodical, pointed speeches, America was apparently primed for a more casual fascism. An "oh well if you think I went too far, then I was just kidding" type of fascism. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise that the GOP is still in Trump's stranglehold, but DeSantis is a-knockin'. And I think he's far more dangerous/capable, policy-wise. Trump needed his media savviness to rise to the top, especially in the primaries, but DeSantis doesn't, the conservative media apparatus will coalesce around anyone they think can take back power, and with none of the initial skepticism given to Trump.
Now I will grant you that I don't spend a lot of time studying Ron DeSantis. He may have displayed moments of pure electrical charm. But every time I see him, he looks like a mall cop whose turn to wear the manager shirt coincided with the day someone's emotional support ferret bit a girl at Hot Topic. Trump is not a particularly charismatic individual either, but he spent what? Ten years? being portrayed as an insightful, straight-shooting business mogul by a team of four hundred television technicians. I used to make that sausage and I'm here to tell ya I can make you pay eight bucks for possum assholes on a bun. But not before you make the sausage. And I ain't makin' sausage without a substantial payoff. Mark Burnett turned Donald Trump into presidential material. I've watched him do it. He's an incredibly savvy guy, and he knows exactly how to make people happy. I did Season 1 of the voice and had Carson Daly on mic when Mark Burnett walked over to him and said "so we've got a problem the judges have voted down too many people to actually make their teams." It's like... you didn't consider this possibility before rolling on an auditorium with 800 people in it? So I got to hear them come up with a solution on the fly (convince the judges to give certain candidates "another listen") in a way that was both manipulative, crowd-pleasing and free. There are no Mark Burnetts interested in turning Ron DeSantis into the next Trump. All the Mark Burnetts, in fact, have quit the Republican Party in outrage. You do not fly Briscoe Cain up to DC to stand Rudy Giuliani in front of Four Seasons Landscaping when you've got Mark Burnett on speed dial. And you definitely don't have Mark Burnett on speed dial after Four Seasons Landscaping.Maybe it is a blessing in disguise that the GOP is still in Trump's stranglehold, but DeSantis is a-knockin'.
Nah I'm done trying to correctively edit comments with embedded tweets, later