The New Red Scare
 

The media is concentrating on the source of the leaks instead of the corruption contained within,.. So now we have:

"THE RUSSIANS!! The Commies are after our freedom. The reds tampered with our election and interfered with our Democracy!! Ignore the DNC anti-bernie collusion! The pinkos are the source of the leaks. Donald Trump is a secret russian spy installed by PUTIN!! IGNORE The evidence for Democrats pay for play politics!! IGNORE!! BE AFRAID OF THE RUSKIES!"

I'm sure this isn't correct. The media can't possibly be doing the "Joseph Mccarthy" red scare dance.

I don't know why I keep coming here. I actually have the majority of the General forum on ignore at this point.

EDIT: sorry to derail.

I daresay that a lot of this talk simply comes from the fact that the Internet gives anyone in the world access to "a bully pulpit."

A lot of the people who had been manning those "Internet pulpits," and in what's left of both printed and broadcast media, have been unwittingly engaging in a DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN fallacy for a very long time ... and pretty much for the very same reasons. That newspaper based its premature headline on a telephone poll at a time when most Americans did not have telephones; only the wealthy did. In the same manner, these know-it-alls only chose to listen to people who said the same thing as themselves, and they simply refused to believe, right up until yesterday afternoon when the Electoral College vote was finally certified, what was happening right in front of their eyes.

They were only listening, on the Internet, to the minority(!) that talk on the Internet. They never heard from the people who have no time for the Internet because they go to sleep exhausted each night after having worked two low-paying jobs ever since the local factory was shut down and moved to <<Mexico | Bangladesh | China | anywhere-else-but-here.>> But those were the States that made the difference. (And that is why the Presidential election is ultimately made by the States, not the population.)

It should also be an indication that, although a small handful of Electors indulged in "clowning around" with their duties, they did not take it upon themselves to re-write what their States had spoken, even though they might now have to spend the next two years emptying their e-mail boxes.

I'm quite sure that this will be the permanent end of "paperless, un-auditable voting machines," and to me that would be a very good thing. But, when you are grasping at straws, pretty much any straw will do. "The Ruskies" have always been a reliable straw-man bad-guy. (Hell, it worked for McCarthy, until he finally overstepped his bounds and overstayed his welcome.)

I was mightily amused when Mr. Trump tweeted that, had the election outcome been the opposite and it was his camp that was talking about "Russian tampering with the election," they would have been brushed-off as "conspiracy theorists." He's absolutely right. And, anyone from his camp who had even suggested "a revolution in the Electoral College" would have been branded a traitor.

It also amuses me this morning to look at some of these web sites and to ask, "So, where are the stories this morning?" Even the most gigantic hangover lasts no more than 12 hours . . .

I don't quite get your point. The Russians aren't communists: more like fascists. There was Russian hacking of US computers and it's suspicious that The Donald denies it. Not only does the US intelligence community claim it, but so does ours and they had no dog in the US presidential fight. President Obama should have acted, but that's typical of him: always a day late and a dollar short.

What exactly is the constitutional position if the US security services believe that the president is a Russian stooge?

Interestingly, there isn't hard evidence of "Russian hacking" of the vote-counting computer systems, nor of "hacking" by anyone else such as would alter the vote count or the outcome of the votes cast by the several States.

But, there is (IMHO) a very serious vulnerability intrinsic in any voting system which does not have a solid trail of paper. In many precincts and States where the turnout turned out to be critical, there is nothing available to "re-count." I consider this to be an unacceptable vulnerability in a national-election system: that it was even-theoretically susceptible to forms of tampering (not necessarily from Moscow) that might not be detectable after the fact.

We always need to be able to do this: "Here are X-million pieces of paper. Start (re-)counting. One... two... three..." And we do not "put a stop to" any recount; to any timely challenge. Here's the sealed warehouse filled with boxes of paper. Open 'em up and start counting.

We should use computers to optimize the returns process and to guard against voter fraud ("if the cat's away ..."), but not to replace a physical trail of the votes cast. If we do (and, we did ...), then "exactly what did happen" will happen: the "wrong candidate" will win, and people will question the results by any stretch of imagination whatever, and there will be no auditable trail by which to obtain closure in this profoundly-important matter of State.

A whole lot of people are simply stuck in denial right now ... and, mind you, I'm none too happy either, having not voted for either of those two fools ... but the results are what they are and it is time to move on. No matter what anyone says or does, and no matter how desperately they might still deny that it could not somehow be so, Hillary Clinton is not going to be "Madame President." At least, not this year. "The people have spoken," and, while I think that they surely must have gone stark-raving mad, "they did speak."

"What exactly is the constitutional position if the US security services believe that the president is a Russian stooge?" Bomb the heck out of England??? Doubt it.

I assume that many countries have been hacking into American private and public data for a long time. What I don't get is that the leaks of data that derailed what's her name were genuine emails and conversations. What's her name never denied all those things like conspiring to cheat Sanders out of a fair chance.

If Russia (and maybe they did) hacked anyone I'd assume they simply wanted a Soviet block born first lady. It would seem unlikely that Trump's tough stance would help China or Russia so I can't see any advantage.



Maybe we could go back to European ways and marry into and across country lines.

Quite frankly, Jefro, this seems to me to be a rather absurd ... exactly the sort of Conspiracy Theory that one might come up with if: Ahem.

One must, after all, kindly presume that "the parties in question, at least up until that most-unfortunate turn of events," expressed no particular concern over the introduction of purely-electronic voting systems which provided n-o independently-verifiable "paper trail." (As did every prior system ... "but, I digress™ ...") :rolleyes:

So, now, let us just throw caution sanity itself to the four winds, and proclaim that "the new President is (somebody's ... anybody's ...) "stooge?"

Ahem ... how does one say such a thing "politely?" Well, I just suppose that you can't.

So ... here goes ...

- - - -

But also ... I seriously think that the American people should pause to contemplate just-exactly why they allowed themselves to become "so, and indeed so irreversibly, engaged" in "this, particular, Presidential Election?"

(I don't seem to recall protests convening outside of State Capitols, in any of a great many years past, when Electors showed up to do their thing ...)

Was it, indeed, "reality tee-vee marketing?" Was it "Internet marketing gone wrong?" (Or was it simply the now-clueless grumblings of a too-old phart?) ;)

Seriously: "Something went very-seriously wrong this time." (IMHO.™)

Perhaps without quite thinking it through, it seems to me that we all sauntered "right up to the edge, and then we jumped right off." By Gawd™, whether the proffered potion was 'Red' or 'Blue,' we sure-the-hell drank it right down, now didn't we . . . ?!

- - -
And ... (oh, dear God ...) now what?

To me it does not matter where " the leaks " came from- what mattered to me, and to a lot of other people, was that Hillary Clinton and her team cheated to get the " democratic nomination " away from Bernie Sanders!!

As an aside ask yourself just how many elections, coups, and " regime changes " have been committed over these many years by the United States government!!

No better way to discredit information and misdirect the public than to bring up the old Red enemy. "Quick go chase the red ball!"

It's going to be especially satisfying to me if wikileaks shows that the leaks against the DNC came from a member of the DNC.

Republican and Democratic political corruption has to be curbed eventually. Hoping people can extend their attention span enough to see the changes through.

After picking myself up off the floor ... I would never have voted for either of these two clowns ... I admit that I am (somewhat morbidly) interested in exactly what this man will do, especially in the opening months. He is very purposely choosing Cabinet members who are n-o-t members of the "Washington, DC establishment." He's a multi-billionaire businessman with a very well-known penchant for brashness which (following successful television shows such as The Apprentice) is totally unlike anything that "DC, Inc." has ever seen in its life. I think that a lot of people are scared to death of him, and maybe they should be.

But I don't think that he will start out by bombing people; going into National Forests and cutting down trees; selling off National Parks and so on. By now, he's probably beginning to figure out what the job actually consists of.

The dollar-and-ninety-nine-cent question is: Congress. About six hundred people, some of whom have been in the same office (rightly or wrongly) for more than thirty years, none of whom have to do anything that the Chief Executive bids them to do. "They're your Board of Directors, sir." A President has absolute military authority but no civil authority to speak of: he must rule by persuasion.

Quite frankly, the main reason why I didn't vote for either clown is that I don't think that either of them would have a cucking-floo how to deal with Congress, even though Hillary did sit there for a time as a stepping stone (or, so she assumed) back to the White House. Famously, John F. Kennedy tried a little too hard . . . :(

Young men come into the US Presidency, but old men come out.

Well whatever directions our " President Trump " and his " team " take us, and the world, into it is just inevitable!! I expect very drastic changes to happen very quickly, I just hope that the government does not shut off my monthly social security benefit!!

The whole US intelligence community doesn't agree with the CIA's findings:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12...k-of-evidence/

The US Empire lives off threat inflation. Trump's reapproachment towards Russia is a threat to their bottom line. Europe wants a defanged oil dealer and Eastern Europe has understandable bad blood with Russia. War is a business and having Russia as an enemy is very lucrative. The US is well protected from Salafi jihadist and like any profitable business it wants to expand. There is a quagmire in the Middle East with Trump's name on it. I'm sure espionage by the Russians, Israelis, Saudis, Chinese, and other countries against the US occurs every single day. Saudis buy influence through think tanks. Israel has the US media and politicians dancing. The Democrat party isn't going to reform its neoliberal policies and corruption which caused its loss. It instead is going to go after independent media. They don't cry about Israel being the top spy threat to the US: http://www.newsweek.com/israel-flagg...ocument-262991 Its all about the Empire. Trump broke narrative and challenged Pax Americana. The American elite worked very hard to make Russia the new enemy and are angry that he is taking it away from them. There are many twists and turns concerning the American Empire and everyone uses it to strengthen their own position if they can at the expense of the Empire itself which is happily bleeding to death with debt. It will be interesting to see if Trump can get other countries to pay tribute to the Empire like he campaigned for.

Its a given that Russia and everyone else wants someone who is favorable towards them. The US does the same to everyone else. Wikileaks said the files didn't come from Russia. If the voting machines were tampered with then Hillary would have won. The CIA hasn't presented any evidence. Russia Today provides a space for voices that are neglected by the US media. The drama over Russia pale's in comparison to nuclear theft (remember Brewster Jennings?): http://www.commondreams.org/news/200...spy-ring-probe That story didn't get much attention. This story will blow over or be the excuse for some kind of censorship regime.

A relevant take on this subject:
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nati...state-blues-2/

I found it mightily amusing that, out of the (only ...) eight Electors who didn't vote as they were supposed to, six were supposed to vote for Hillary.

I guess "the old gray lady" wasn't nearly as popular as she thought she was. Although I despise the thought of who did get elected, I really don't mind at all that she didn't.

But, the "Russian hacking" story should cause us to change how we do elections in the future, anyway. People must believe that their votes were counted correctly, and, most especially when "the 'wrong' candidate wins," it must be possible to physically re-count them. This always was a very flawed concept for an election system, and it looks like it ran into trouble ... the trouble of doubt ... the very first time it was tried. Sore losers challenged the results, and claimed that the computerized results were false, and there was no way to audit those results. That's not good design of a data processing system!