Current Trump Press Conference: I hope Russia finds Hillary's emails

[Averroës Nix]

I can't help laughing at the Clintonites who seem to think that the Putin bit is an effective anti-Trump tactic. And maybe some of you are actually biased enough to believe that it is demonstrably true despite the oft-ignored reality that evidence for a connection, or even of more than negligible manipulation, remains weak.

Then I remember that these are the only folks standing between us and a Trump administration, and I feel very, very scared. It is amazing how detached these people are from the concerns of voters outside of their extended social circles of well-off, highly educated coastal professionals. Even if much of the movement that we've seen over the past week is a convention bump, the polls have steadily trended toward Trump since his mid-June nadir. There needs to be a better answer to this than half-baked conspiracies that reek of desperation.

[Averroës Nix]

It has nothing to do with the importance of foreign policy, nor is Trump's statement likely to be taken as a serious invocation of Russian espionage by most voters. If you don't understand that by now, you understand very little about this election and even less about the roots of Trump's appeal, and his resilience as a candidate.

Trump is a buffoon who doesn't care about how his words or actions affect other people. He has an almost childlike understanding of international relations, and probably knows no more about the world than the median adult American. We know this. Why does he need to be a Kremlin agent, even an unwitting one, to behave as he does? The idea barely makes sense.

At best, the claims and suggestions that surrogates for the Clinton campaign (and large segments of the media, not all of which are outright pro-Clinton) are making are exaggerated and heavily conjectural. At worst, they are outright lies. Why so many of you are echoing them, I can't understand.

[Averroës Nix]

I think he was joking. Just the press doesn't get it. Big Don has just a great sense of humor.

This sums it up.

I think that many of the conniptions that we are seeing here, as well as from those in the mainstream media, are a product of people who are genuinely disturbed by what Trump is doing. And it should be extremely disturbing for those of us who care about the quality of political discourse in this country.

The thing is, that does not mean that Trump is actually in cahoots with Putin. And when prospective members of what we might call the "Trumpenproletariat" hear accusations to that effect, they are not inclined to believe them. Instead, they interpret these warnings as disingenuous, and yet another reason to feel alienated from the mainstream politicians and media figures who espouse them.

We would be in a much less disturbing place as a country if Russian interference were the best explanation for Trump's success. What we have experienced over the past year, however, points to other factors. Besides, who would choose an actor as unpredictable, even irrational, as Trump is, as his pawn? Do we really think that Putin is capable of influencing him in a way that yields predictable benefits for him?

[Averroës Nix]

What your missing is that Trump doesn't need to be labeled as a Kremlin agent. Russia is unpopular as is Putin. Trump is clearly showing that he holds pro-Russian views. Trump may have tapped into alot of hidden sentiments in America, but I guarantee you pro-Russian will not be one of them.

This would be a great bit of political strategy if we had any indication that swing voters believe the accusations when they hear them. But we do not. On the other hand, this has become another opportunity for Trump's shills to bring Clinton's private e-mail server back under national media coverage, and in yet another context in which Clinton's surrogates are almost forcibly maneuvered into talking about it in a way that sounds dismissive and deflective.

(Does this actually hurt Clinton? I'm inclined to think that it does, given how poorly polls show her scoring on trustworthiness and accountability. Who knows, really, but I'm confident that it is, at least, not helpful.)

[Averroës Nix]

I'm not suggesting that he's in cahoots with Putin. But what's clear is that Putin is backing him

No, it really isn't.

[Averroës Nix]

Not sure why people are talking about how this will poll or whatever when it's plain that electing Trump would be the greatest gift to Russian imperialism since Churchill and Roosevelt were duped at Yalta. Does that not matter?

It also matters that the Clinton camp is highlighting these claims as a matter of campaign strategy. I think that this makes about as much sense as the idiotic and tone-deaf choice of "AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT" as a campaign theme.

If Clinton were maintaining a comfortable lead in the polls despite this, it would not bother me so much, but Trump has been increasing his vote share since mid-June. He may be leading on account of a convention bump, but I doubt that Clinton would have a clear lead at this point even if that were not the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think being disturbed about the bizarre Russian connection to Trump's inner campaign circle absolves him, the Republican Party or the American public of guilt for the Trump campaign.

Is Trump literally on the payroll of the Kremlin? Probably not. Why would they take the risk when he's going to do whatever they want anyway? But Russia clearly recognises that Trump is basically the kind of ignorant internet troll who thinks Putin is tough and macho, and to the extent that he has any beliefs about foreign policy they're manipulatable based on that.  I think it's fairly obvious that Manafort etc. have been steering him in this direction. As for unpredictability, sure, but as we've known for some time Putin's primarily concerned with weakening 'the West' above all else, and the election of Trump would achieve that in dramatic fashion. A human Brexit.

Remember that literally the only platform plank the Trump people edited - while letting the usual Christian right write the rest of of it freely - was about condemning Putin for Crimea.
[/quote]

The platform plank is genuinely disturbing, but I'm not sure why it is likely to indicate a unique connection between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin. Trump has gleefully accepted endorsements from extreme-right leaders across the Global North. Whatever inclination he has to align himself with Putin is best viewed in the same light, rather than as an indication that Russia is actively trying to manipulate the outcome of a US presidential election. And I don't doubt that it is also driven in part by the same kind of ignorance that made George W. Bush so eager to enlist Russia as an ally in the "struggle against radical Islamic terrorism."

This is what frustrates me with how we talk about this. It's a bit like people who invent conspiracy theories because Tony Blair made a lot of money off of consulting work in Central Asia, or the Clinton Foundation's donations from places like Saudi Arabia. Yes, all of this stuff is disturbing, but not in the apoplectic  "Manchurian candidate" sense. No, Trump is not literally "committing treason."

[Averroës Nix]

I'm not suggesting that he's in cahoots with Putin. But what's clear is that Putin is backing him

No, it really isn't.

It depends what you mean by 'backing'. We can quibble about the extent of involvement. Surely it's evident that Putin would like Trump to win, no?

Of course, but less because Trump would align the United States with Russia or any particular Russian interests than because Putin would benefit from an incompetent US President with minimal interest in foreign policy. This difference seems pretty important to me.

[Averroës Nix]

All this complaining about Trump's trumpery of Russia does is make the US, and particularly this Administration, look very weak: "Oh, my gracious!, a country with 1/3rd our population and 1/5th our wealth is stealing our election! Mother, make them stop." It's pathetic and distracting. Just chalk this up as another one of Trump's inanities and move on.

Uh, the hack on the DNC is not outside the capabilities of many criminal organizations, let alone a country like Russia, who is known for its expertise is technology. Russian hackers (state sponsored or not) contribute massively to the number of hacks around the world.

Point is, even Ukraine could orchestrate such a hack (Ukraine is also a major source of cybercrime, in addition to Russia). It really doesn't take a whole lot of resources or manpower for something like this.

This is also a reason to be somewhat skeptical of claims that the hack *must* have been backed by the Kremlin. There are plenty of groups that possess the resources and skill to pull off what we have seen, even without anything resembling a state sponsor.

[Averroës Nix]

Since hacking is apparently a-okay, someone should hack Trump's tax records and release them. The public has a right to know, so hack away!!!

This would be pretty great, actually. One can only hope that Trump is as lax about encryption as the DNC apparently was.