If The Russians Engineered a Trump Victory

[pbrower2a]

(11-14-2016, 08:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We live in a society in which people, including the president-elect, get their news from the internet, which is clogged with right-wing baloney and some left-wing baloney, conspiracy theory and fake news. Half the people believe that our government is chosen by the Bilderburg Group, that 9-11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, and that Hillary is a criminal. It's enough to drive ME dizzy. I don't know how the USA survives if the people are no longer informed or rational.

I have found that the most reliable news has always been the AP wires. That is news in the raw, news compiled so quickly that nobody can analyze, let alone spin it.

Analysis sounds noble enough  as a word -- but everyone analyzes news with a personal bias. If you can stand to watch deadly-serious FoX News, you will find that the news that it reports without spin or analysis, as on apolitical items, is objective enough. But most of its time is on analysis that offers people an interpretation consistent with the values of the top management.

We need cool down some. Most events are not the results of some ancient conspiracy as with the Bilderburg Group or the Bavarian Illuminati. There was obviously no connection between 9/11 and any part of the American Establishment except that even the most secretive parts of the American Establishment (like the Skull and Bones Fraternity and the Bohemian Grove club was as offended as anyone else. Even if one wishes to discuss "Radical Islam".... the Nation of Islam is definitely radical, but it could have no solidarity with al-Qaeda. It is not radicalism that its itself evil; it is malice that is evil. Sometimes the radicals are right.

We must assume the best in people even if we disagree with them on core values. People who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage generally do so because they think those unspeakably horrible. OK. I can concur that if a woman can bear a viable baby to term without undue danger to her life and health (including reproductive health) then maybe we can all encourage her to carry the baby to term and arrange for some loving couple to adopt the child. Same-sex marriage? So gays and lesbians who are unable to love except within their own gender want to participate in one of the oldest and most honored traditions, and do what other conservative traditionalists assume without thinking, like raising a child who might otherwise have been aborted? We straight people should be flattered! You can trust that a pair of gays or lesbians raising a child can be as militant in protecting that child as straight people.

(I am for gay rights even on the conservative issue of law and order; having been gay-bashed, I recognize the need for dignified treatment of gays and lesbians. Just keep your sexual attention away from children... not that I could ever accept dirty old men messing around with underage girls, either). Respect for human dignity strengthens law and order, making crime much less likely.

We all need to promote rational thought. We need promote respect for others, including those whose core values diverge from ours.

The 2016 election is the victory of single-issue politics -- on such topics as guns, abortion, and homosexuality. So what can we liberals have to say of guns? We need to align with sport hunters on the environment. Birders and sport hunters have a shared concern with protecting the environment from being ravaged for quick-buck profits. Abortion? We need remind those that oppose abortion most absolutely that abortion is always an extreme choice that many people reject out of conscience.  Same-sex marriage? Did anyone ever make a conscious choice to be 'straight'?

I look at the choices of the President-elect for the people around him; they suggest a radical agenda, little of which I will ever like. We liberals will have plenty on which to oppose Donald Trump in political demonstrations and protests. If he should stand for ravaging the environment for quick-buck gain that will do more harm than generate profit, then we can stand with nature -- and likely sport hunters. If he should stand for brutalization of law enforcement that will make it more dangerous than crime itself, then we need show solidarity with minorities likely to be the victims. If he is to seek the outlawry of trade unions, then we have obvious allies. Should he start a pointless war for profit -- we got away with protests of the Vietnam War, didn't we?

The President-elect has been reckless with his rhetoric before the election and will surely be so afterward. People do not suddenly grow up at 70. I have never seen it happen. I have seen people act 40 at age 15 (I am one of them) and people act like teenagers even into old age (if their alcoholic livers or cocaine-ruined hearts don't kill them first). Some people are emotionally mature at age 13, and some people don't fully grow up until 30 or so. If they don't grow up at 30 or so, then they likely never will. Alcoholics and addicts are obvious enough. Entertainers, media celebrities, pro athletes, and many creative people might get away with being child-like all their lives; think of Michael Jackson. Donald Trump isn't that different.

Nothing so exposes the personal flaws of a person as does the Presidency. It is the most demanding job in the world, and not only for cognitive skills. (I am guessing that Donald Trump is a mediocrity in intellect). Anybody can imagine himself as President and play the "if I were King" game. Just think of what a President commands: the Armed Forces, which have their own means of choosing who can lead as a senior officer; the diplomatic corps; and arguably the biggest economic enterprise on Earth, an enterprise with not only great assets but also huge responsibilities to people that one can never understand so clearly as profit and loss. Even one of the giant vertically-integrated oil companies has simpler objectives. I predict that the incoming President will use his hotel chains as model for how to lead a nation and let the economic special interests run the rest. That model will fail.

I see his personality not only unfit for the Presidency, but also his temperament. He will believe that he can issue an order to some clerk at Social Security and expect it to be obeyed. He will be very wrong. He will be disappointed when non-Right media turn against him. As the alt.right that so loves him adulates his decisions, those for whom the alt.right has nothing to offer but degradation will come to despise him.

I predict a political failure at least as bad as those of Carter and Hoover, but even worse because Carter and Hoover at the least had some moral compasses. The question is whether the groups associated with the Hard Right sector of American politics will not turn to brutal means to keep getting their way -- by destroying democracy. Every society except those that have just driven out or exterminated that group after  a Socialist insurrection has a class of elitists who believe that so long as that group gets indulgence constrained only by limits of productivity that it can demand all possible human suffering in achieving that indulgence. Such people will murder millions in the preservation of their sick dream, let alone destroy democracy. We have never had such people endanger the democracy of America to the extent that American democracy now seems in gross and pointless danger.

Remember, folks -- this is a Crisis Era, and so far we have had it relatively tame. The Tea Parties and Black Lives  matter are tame in contrast to what private, politicized militias or some new secret police can do on behalf of an unpopular government. President trump will be very unpopular very fast as he decides which promises to break first. He will hurt the working class first because it has no organization in politics.

The most positive end of this Crisis will be that Americans come to some shared conclusion that we need an America that works for us all. The People Power revolution that toppled Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. part democratic revolution and part military coup, might be how things work out. That is a liberal solution. The worst possible end for this Crisis, short of nuclear war that decimates the world population or even causes its extinction, is that America goes on a missionary enterprise to expand a racist, exploitative ideology into places in which it is unwelcome, and America is defeated as America defeated Germany and Japan in World War II. In that case, the best scenario is that the victors establish MacArthur-style regencies over their zones of occupation in America and decide to foster liberalism because it will do less harm and develop credibility quickly. Even the Chinese might concur with that. Just imagine that you are a released political prisoner and the Chinese offer a deal that in return for allowing a liberal democracy in your bailiwick you give the Chinese a free hand in arresting and prosecuting people who have committed crimes against  Chinese POWs and Chinese-Americans. I would not have to do much thinking were I in such a situation. 

We are in a Crisis Era, and we have had it very soft for now. The $#!+ has just started hitting the fan. But that $#!+ is infected with the political equivalent of HIV.

[Odin]

(11-14-2016, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Back on topic ....

http://www.intellinews.com/kruk-report-w...rce=russia

'I can’t pretend that I don’t see further dark developments ahead. The US election is not alone – it comes after the Dutch referendum against the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine and the Brexit vote in the UK. All those events fall together and are a continuation of a process of the global rise of populism, of voting with your emotions and not with your brain, of irresponsible politicians and naive voters. What should we do with our societies? How should politicians communicate with people? In which direction are we going and where will we end up with such dizzying speed?'

The problem is that governments have to go back to actually listening to what their citizens want even if what the citizens want might offend the sensibilities of the cosmopolitan elites who think they "know better than the stupid rabble". The main reason for the rise of Euroskepticism in Europe is the sense of the EU being an elitist technocratic neoliberal bureaucracy unaccountable to and outright contemptuous of voters.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-15-2016, 05:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Remember, folks -- this is a Crisis Era, and so far we have had it relatively tame. The Tea Parties and Black Lives  matter are tame in contrast to what private, politicized militias or some new secret police can do on behalf of an unpopular government. President trump will be very unpopular very fast as he decides which promises to break first. He will hurt the working class first because it has no organization in politics...  (Snip)

We are in a Crisis Era, and we have had it very soft for now. The $#!+ has just started hitting the fan. But that $#!+ is infected with the political equivalent of HIV.

By the calendar, assuming S&H's theory works in a mechanistic clockwork way, we ought to be in a crisis era.  Yet, I don't think we have had a regeneracy.  A successful regeneracy that leads to a successful crisis would require an idealist president with a vision of change that will solve the primary problems the culture is facing.  Said president would have to have the people skills to build a coalition, to keep enough people aboard that his changes are given a chance to stick.  He must also have a united Congress that is willing to accept the transformation.

To get these things there must be a traumatic failure of the old values.  A 'relatively tame' failure will not cut it.  The  anemic economy created by borrow and spend trickle down is not the collapsed economy of FDR's time.  The modern culture wars issues are significant and divisive, but not on the scale of slavery.  There is no existential external threat to the nation comparable to Hitler and the fascists.

We have had some almost regeneracies.  September 11th had us invading the Middle East.  Bush 43 laid out a path where after we stabilized Iraq we could use our newly built massive bases to invade the next country on our list.  Proxy insurgent warfare made this major shift obviously implausible.  I label this a false regeneracy.  We had a near economic collapse at the end of Bush 43's time.  This was a near collapse, not a collapse.  With a full collapse we would have needed to do some grand transformations, we might have gotten a true regeneracy.  However, eight years later the Republicans are back in power and are promising more borrow and spend trickle down.  I'm not even sure the Great Recession counts as a false regeneracy.  There was nothing really transforming proposed or executed.

I'm trying not to pre judge Trump too much.  His election is an indication that a lot of people are very disappointed in the status quo.  This is a sign that perhaps a regeneracy isn't impossible in the near future.  However, Trump is promising more borrow and spend trickle down.  All of that anger directed at the establishment does absolutely no good if the transforming vision of the future doesn't solve the problems confronting us.

I don't know that the unraveling / crisis cusp has been sufficiently defined.  S&H's examples of such borders give conflicting styles of events.  Do you place the border at a military event like Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor or September 11th?  Is it the election of a president with the right ideals to solve the problem plus coalition building skills?  Do document proclaiming the new values count, such as the Declaration of Independence?  Does a major economic collapse count?  Do you have to wait until well after the crisis is over to decide which catalyst should be considered the trigger?

This has been unsettled for decades and I doubt we'll resolve it now.

So I'd say we have seen a lot of catalyst events in the last decade plus, but no clear trigger event.  We've seen major policy changes, but none of them have really stuck or are major enough to say the culture has changed.  We still have the stagnant divided nation that says 'unraveling' clearly and without doubt.  We are still stuck in that awful no man's land between a clear need to change and a firm decision on how to change.

I still haven't got a firm notion on what Trump is going to do.  I have a feeling that Trump still hasn't got a firm notion on what Trump is going to do.  He's saying a few things that make me almost hope, then follows it with stuff that makes me cringe.  I'm not inclined to propose that his election was the trigger event.  Way too soon to make that call.

But I'm not going to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon yet either.  Lots of other folks are working that.  I don't see that another voice is needed.

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2016, 08:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 05:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Remember, folks -- this is a Crisis Era, and so far we have had it relatively tame. The Tea Parties and Black Lives  matter are tame in contrast to what private, politicized militias or some new secret police can do on behalf of an unpopular government. President trump will be very unpopular very fast as he decides which promises to break first. He will hurt the working class first because it has no organization in politics...  (Snip)

We are in a Crisis Era, and we have had it very soft for now. The $#!+ has just started hitting the fan. But that $#!+ is infected with the political equivalent of HIV.

By the calendar, assuming S&H's theory works in a mechanistic clockwork way, we ought to be in a crisis era.  Yet, I don't think we have had a regeneracy.  A successful regeneracy that leads to a successful crisis would require an idealist president with a vision of change that will solve the primary problems the culture is facing.  Said president would have to have the people skills to build a coalition, to keep enough people aboard that his changes are given a chance to stick.  He must also have a united Congress that is willing to accept the transformation.

It's the late-3T Degeneracy that leads to the Crisis.

I associate the road to Crisis with weak or incompetent leaders unable to stave off dangers in the 3T who let things fester or provoke calamity.  I think of the shabby leadership of George III trying to squeeze the colonists despite the lack of wisdom in so doing. I think of such awful Presidents as Pierce, Fillmore, and Buchanan just before the Civil War, and the dreadful trio of weak Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Dubya was a very poor President and gave us the sort of leadership characteristic of a pre-Crisis Degeneracy... but Barack Obama may have stopped the Degeneracy. Stopped it -- but did not undo or reverse it. He was not going to precipitate a Crisis; he is just too good a person and leader to do that even if the other Party decided to thwart just about every reform he wanted after two years. Even so his foreign policy and economic practice were too cautious and rational to allow a Crisis to happen. So maybe he successfully deferred the Crisis.  But that may be all that he could do. We may get the full Crisis mode on January 21, 2017 when a sociopathic demagogue takes over the Presidency and pushes what looks (in view of his choices in the transition) like an agenda for the '20s. 1920s, that is, an extension of the Gilded Age that ended catastrophically in the Great Depression and the rise of Satan Incarnate in Germany.

With a compliant Congress that also believes that no human suffering is in excess so long as it indulges economic elites and enforces their will, I can imagine Republicans saying collectively "We won and you're done -- comply or die!"

Now THAT is a Crisis. The majority is very shaky should there be a free election in 2020. Who says that there will be a free election in 2020? I expect the absolute worst from the people in power, and I expect horrible results. If the Republicans see themselves losing as Hoover did in 1932, do not expect them to allow a loss. EWconomic elites that see their own indulgence as the only objective permissible in society do not yield power willingly. But they can start wars to spread their putrid ideology into places in which it is unwelcome. I do not expect any such war to go well for America.

Quote: To get these things there must be a traumatic failure of the old values.  A 'relatively tame' failure will not cut it.  The  anemic economy created by borrow and spend trickle down is not the collapsed economy of FDR's time.  The modern culture wars issues are significant and divisive, but not on the scale of slavery.  There is no existential external threat to the nation comparable to Hitler and the fascists.

But what of an internal threat? I expect a people accustomed to freedom to not accept some harsh, authoritarian regime. Such a regime often relies upon an external war to stir up patriotism to divert people from the nastiness in their lives. Such was the choice of Nicholas II of Russia a little over a hundred years ago. Three months short of a century ago The Tsar of All the Russias abdicated under pressure in the February Revolution. Eleven months short of a century ago, the whole Russian political system fell to the Bolsheviks.

Just a warning. No, I do not expect to celebrate the Bolshevik Revolution and its odious consequences next year.

Quote:We have had some almost regeneracies.  September 11th had us invading the Middle East.  Bush 43 laid out a path where after we stabilized Iraq we could use our newly built massive bases to invade the next country on our list.  Proxy insurgent warfare made this major shift obviously implausible.  I label this a false regeneracy.  We had a near economic collapse at the end of Bush 43's time.  This was a near collapse, not a collapse.  With a full collapse we would have needed to do some grand transformations, we might have gotten a true regeneracy.  However, eight years later the Republicans are back in power and are promising more borrow and spend trickle down.  I'm not even sure the Great Recession counts as a false regeneracy.  There was nothing really transforming proposed or executed.

We might get a false Regeneracy in that it falls short of adequacy because it has too many elements of evil. Destruction of the democratic heritage of America is one of the worst things that could ever happen, and not only to Americans. Such gives the rest of the world a focus of fear that it has never had before. 

Quote:I'm trying not to pre judge Trump too much.  His election is an indication that a lot of people are very disappointed in the status quo.  This is a sign that perhaps a regeneracy isn't impossible in the near future.  However, Trump is promising more borrow and spend trickle down.  All of that anger directed at the establishment does absolutely no good if the transforming vision of the future doesn't solve the problems confronting us.

Yes, people were unhappy with the status quo. Transformation of the United States of America into a pure plutocracy in which economic elites dictate all policy creates unspeakable instability for the entire world. America has huge economic assets all over the world, and as America becomes a monster, those become targets for terrorism. Let America treat Muslims as pariahs, and it won't be only "Radical" Islam that will hate us. It will also be the more moderate types that prevail in Indonesia and a large part of the Indian population. Do you think that the Hindu majority in India will treat Indian Muslims badly at the behest of America?

Populist demagogues have stabbed the common man in the back once they find or recognize that the real power is economic, and that it is far easier to sell out to the super-rich than to fight them.

Quote:I don't know that the unraveling / crisis cusp has been sufficiently defined.  S&H's examples of such borders give conflicting styles of events.  Do you place the border at a military event like Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor or September 11th?  Is it the election of a president with the right ideals to solve the problem plus coalition building skills?  Do document proclaiming the new values count, such as the Declaration of Independence?  Does a major economic collapse count?  Do you have to wait until well after the crisis is over to decide which catalyst should be considered the trigger?

We are going to see much happen. I expect a huge increase in demonstrations and protests over unpopular policies of the Trump Administration. We could see many race riots as the Administration chooses to favor white people over minorities because white people supported Trump and minorities didn't. I expect no conciliation; authoritarian regimes almost invariably punish demographic groups that opposed them with economic punishment. I can even imagine an Apartheid system being established in America.

Quote:So I'd say we have seen a lot of catalyst events in the last decade plus, but no clear trigger event.  We've seen major policy changes, but none of them have really stuck or are major enough to say the culture has changed.  We still have the stagnant divided nation that says 'unraveling' clearly and without doubt.  We are still stuck in that awful no man's land between a clear need to change and a firm decision on how to change.

Barack Obama has done a good job of keeping the oily rags from collecting in the bright sunlight. But that ends in February.

Quote:I still haven't got a firm notion on what Trump is going to do.  I have a feeling that Trump still hasn't got a firm notion on what Trump is going to do.  He's saying a few things that make me almost hope, then follows it with stuff that makes me cringe.  I'm not inclined to propose that his election was the trigger event.  Way too soon to make that call.

Watch on January 21 if you can stand to. If he says conciliatory stuff, then don't believe it until you see it in practice.

Quote:But I'm not going to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon yet either.  Lots of other folks are working that.  I don't see that another voice is needed.

It's still early.  But in a Crisis things can go very bad very fast. I think that President Trump, by making America work for only a small majority of Americans, can make things go very bad very fast. All bets are off, and I expect the worst from a sociopathic demagogue as leader of what has been a democracy.

But remember -- some scenarios that have existed in other countries' Crises (Spanish Civil War, Yugoslav breakup, establishment of Apartheid) are possible here and now.

[Eric the Green]

(11-17-2016, 09:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Whether most Westerners realize it or not, we are at war with the SCO. At present, the war is at the "phony war" stage. Outside of some proxy conflicts, direct use of deadly force has not yet commenced. However, damaging operations of a different sort have been underway for some time. The latest casualty was the Election of 2016:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trollin...democracy/

"Until recently, Western governments focused on state-to-state negotiations with Putin’s regime largely missed Russian state-to-people social media approaches. Russia’s social media campaigns seek five complementary objectives to strengthen Russia’s position over Western democracies:

• Undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance;
  
• Foment and exacerbate divisive political fractures;
  
• Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions;
  
• Popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations;
  
• Create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines between fact and fiction
  

"In sum, these influence efforts weaken Russia’s enemies without the use of force. Russian social media propaganda pushes four general themes to advance Moscow’s influence objectives and connect with foreign populations they target."

But Mr. X, it seems to me, that with Trump's election, they are ALREADY on their way to taking over this country. So job #1 is to resist Trump. We have to start where we are. The Russians have won already. The threat from social media today is from the alt-right and libertarian Trumpsters here who dominate it ALREADY with fake news and constant bullshit slogans. Trump is a severe threat to democracy already, and the USA is almost as much an oligarchy as Putin's Russia ALREADY. If we ever get our democracy back HERE, then we can push forward with our own education and propaganda campaigns in social media to undermine the oligarchies over THERE. There's certainly NO use in supporting such misguided and misdirected foreign adventures that Mr. Trump might get us into for no good reason. As long as we are not free (and we're not), we can't bring freedom to others, nor can we defend ourselves against the Russians. Obviously, if a Russian agent has taken over our country, and he HAS, then they have already won, and the only choice we have is to resist and overthrow this coup. It is absurd to ask us to be patriotic and then get behind a Russian agent and con-man bullshit artist who pretends to be the commander in chief of the USA.

Success and recovery in the 30s and 40s here and social movements here in the fifties, sixties and seventies are what set Western Europe free from tyranny and oligarchy and eventually brought down the Berlin Wall, and almost spread democracy all the way through America and through Russia and China too. It was a rising tide that almost liberated Planet Earth. That's the only way to further success in the future, in the 2020s and beyond. We must set the example for others, not be taken over forever by the suppressive and destructive forces that Trump represents and fosters. A war against the SCO gets us nowhere now, for the first and obvious reason that WE are nowhere now. We have lost our country. SO, FIRST we must resist Trump and the GOP tyranny; then in 4 to 6 years we may have a chance to recover our democracy, challenge oligarchies here and abroad, and help foster the rising tide of liberation and recovery of sustainability across the world again without firing a shot.

[Eric the Green]

The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate.
It's up to Capitol Hill to protect American democracy.

DAVID CORNNOV. 16, 2016 3:24 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...6-campaign

Despite all the news being generated by the change of power underway in Washington, there is one story this week that deserves top priority: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."

This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy. This is news worthy of bold and large front-page headlines—and investigation. Presumably intelligence and law enforcement agencies are robustly probing the hacking of political targets attributed to Russia. But there is another inquiry that is necessary: a full-fledged congressional investigation that holds public hearings and releases its findings to the citizenry.

If the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are digging into the Russian effort to affect US politics, there is no guarantee that what they uncover will be shared with the public. Intelligence investigations often remain secret for the obvious reasons: they involve classified information. And law enforcement investigations—which focus on whether crimes have been committed—are supposed to remain secret until they produce indictments. (And then only information pertinent to the prosecution of a case is released, though the feds might have collected much more.) The investigative activities of these agencies are not designed for public enlightenment or assurance. That's the job of Congress.

When traumatic events and scandals that threaten the nation or its government have occurred—Pearl Harbor, Watergate, the Iran-contra affair, 9/11—Congress has conducted investigations and held hearings. The goal has been to unearth what went wrong and to allow the government and the public to evaluate their leaders and consider safeguards to prevent future calamities and misconduct. That is what is required now. If a foreign government has mucked about and undercut a presidential election, how can Americans be secure about the foundation of the nation and trust their own government? They need to know specifically what intervention occurred, what was investigated (and whether those investigations were conducted well), and what steps are being taken to prevent further intrusions.

There already is much smoke in the public realm: the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Also, Russian hackers reportedly targeted state election systems in Arizona and Illinois. Coincidentally or not, the Russian deputy foreign minister said after the election that Russian government officials had conferred with members of Trump's campaign squad. (A former senior counterintelligence officer for a Western service sent memos to the FBI claiming that he had found evidence of a Russian intelligence operation to coopt and cultivate Trump.) And the DNC found evidence suggesting its Washington headquarters had been bugged—but there was no indication of who was the culprit. In his recent book, The Plot to Hack America, national security expert Malcolm Nance wrote, "Russia has perfected political warfare by using cyber assets to personally attack and neutralize political opponents…At some point Russia apparently decided to apply these tactics against the United States and so American democracy itself was hacked."

Several House Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, have urged the FBI to investigate links between Trump's team and Russia, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has done the same. According to various news reports, Russia-related probes have been started by the FBI targeting Americans associated with the Trump campaign. One reportedly was focused on Carter Page, a businessman whom the Trump campaign identified as a Trump adviser, and another was focused on Paul Manafort, who served for a time as Trump's campaign manager. (Page and Manafort have denied any wrongdoing; Manafort said no investigation was happening.)

Yet there is a huge difference between an FBI inquiry that proceeds behind the scenes (and that may or may not yield public information) and a full-blown congressional inquiry that includes open hearings and ends with a public report. So far, the only Capitol Hill legislator who has publicly called for such an endeavor is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). On Tuesday, Graham, who was harshly critical of Trump during the campaign, proposed that Congress hold hearings on "Russia's misadventures throughout the world," including the DNC hack. "Were they involved in cyberattacks that had a political component to it in our elections?" Graham said. He pushed Congress to find out.

The possibility that a foreign government covertly interfered with US elections to achieve a particular outcome is staggering and raises the most profound concerns about governance within the United States. An investigation into this matter should not be relegated to the secret corners of the FBI or the CIA. The public has the right to know if Putin or anyone else corrupted the political mechanisms of the nation. There already is reason to be suspicious. Without a thorough examination, there will be more cause to question American democracy.

[pbrower2a]

(11-18-2016, 01:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate.
It's up to Capitol Hill to protect American democracy.

DAVID CORNNOV. 16, 2016 3:24 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...6-campaign

Despite all the news being generated by the change of power underway in Washington, there is one story this week that deserves top priority: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."

This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy. This is news worthy of bold and large front-page headlines—and investigation. Presumably intelligence and law enforcement agencies are robustly probing the hacking of political targets attributed to Russia. But there is another inquiry that is necessary: a full-fledged congressional investigation that holds public hearings and releases its findings to the citizenry.

If the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are digging into the Russian effort to affect US politics, there is no guarantee that what they uncover will be shared with the public. Intelligence investigations often remain secret for the obvious reasons: they involve classified information. And law enforcement investigations—which focus on whether crimes have been committed—are supposed to remain secret until they produce indictments. (And then only information pertinent to the prosecution of a case is released, though the feds might have collected much more.) The investigative activities of these agencies are not designed for public enlightenment or assurance. That's the job of Congress.

When traumatic events and scandals that threaten the nation or its government have occurred—Pearl Harbor, Watergate, the Iran-contra affair, 9/11—Congress has conducted investigations and held hearings. The goal has been to unearth what went wrong and to allow the government and the public to evaluate their leaders and consider safeguards to prevent future calamities and misconduct. That is what is required now. If a foreign government has mucked about and undercut a presidential election, how can Americans be secure about the foundation of the nation and trust their own government? They need to know specifically what intervention occurred, what was investigated (and whether those investigations were conducted well), and what steps are being taken to prevent further intrusions.

There already is much smoke in the public realm: the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Also, Russian hackers reportedly targeted state election systems in Arizona and Illinois. Coincidentally or not, the Russian deputy foreign minister said after the election that Russian government officials had conferred with members of Trump's campaign squad. (A former senior counterintelligence officer for a Western service sent memos to the FBI claiming that he had found evidence of a Russian intelligence operation to coopt and cultivate Trump.) And the DNC found evidence suggesting its Washington headquarters had been bugged—but there was no indication of who was the culprit. In his recent book, The Plot to Hack America, national security expert Malcolm Nance wrote, "Russia has perfected political warfare by using cyber assets to personally attack and neutralize political opponents…At some point Russia apparently decided to apply these tactics against the United States and so American democracy itself was hacked."

Several House Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, have urged the FBI to investigate links between Trump's team and Russia, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has done the same. According to various news reports, Russia-related probes have been started by the FBI targeting Americans associated with the Trump campaign. One reportedly was focused on Carter Page, a businessman whom the Trump campaign identified as a Trump adviser, and another was focused on Paul Manafort, who served for a time as Trump's campaign manager. (Page and Manafort have denied any wrongdoing; Manafort said no investigation was happening.)

Yet there is a huge difference between an FBI inquiry that proceeds behind the scenes (and that may or may not yield public information) and a full-blown congressional inquiry that includes open hearings and ends with a public report. So far, the only Capitol Hill legislator who has publicly called for such an endeavor is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). On Tuesday, Graham, who was harshly critical of Trump during the campaign, proposed that Congress hold hearings on "Russia's misadventures throughout the world," including the DNC hack. "Were they involved in cyberattacks that had a political component to it in our elections?" Graham said. He pushed Congress to find out.

The possibility that a foreign government covertly interfered with US elections to achieve a particular outcome is staggering and raises the most profound concerns about governance within the United States. An investigation into this matter should not be relegated to the secret corners of the FBI or the CIA. The public has the right to know if Putin or anyone else corrupted the political mechanisms of the nation. There already is reason to be suspicious. Without a thorough examination, there will be more cause to question American democracy.

Coordinating a political campaign with a foreign government? That is inconceivable! Just imagine what would have happened in the 1950s had some city council associated with its electoral campaign got communist support.


But even should the FBI and CIA find something, one can be certain that any further questions will be hushed. After all we must all struggle to Make America Great Again, and any derogation of out Great and Glorious Leader will be unpatriotic (sarcasm ended). This  material could be released only after Donald Trump is out of office. Were it released it could (if it went far enough) completely discredit  a government. Count on this (if so) being at the same level of secrecy as at the same level as atomic-bomb secrets until the Trump Administration is no more. 



Boris Putin has always held Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in contempt -- maybe because they seemed less pliable? Maybe he thinks that Donald Trump, the definitive empty suit of politics, can be led around like a pliant puppy.  

So what could be as dangerous as the Soviet Union ever was? The Russian Mafia. I wonder how many hooks it has in Donald Trump. Nut if one finds those out one had better get political refuge in some country hostile to American  foreign policy.

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2016, 12:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It is going from bad to worse. One of the things I feared the most is coming true.

Flynn is being submitted as the designee for National Security Advisor. If he is confirmed, for the first time in US History, a known Kremlin mole will enter the inner sanctum.

It has been a done deal for a year or so.

The enemy is within.

[Eric the Green]

KRUGMAN: It's looking more and more like the election was swung by the FBI in virtual 'alliance with Putin'

Bob Bryan
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krug...ey-2016-11
Nov. 17, 2016, 11:25 AM

Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist, suggested Thursday that an "alliance" between a faction of the FBI and Russian President Vladimir Putin swung last week's election in favor of Donald Trump.

Krugman said that given the small margin in swing states that decided the election, the FBI's reactivation of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server was just enough to change the minds of some voters.

FBI Director James Comey announced the discovery of new emails "pertinent" to the case on October 28 — 11 days before the election — before clearing her again a week later.

"As evidence accumulates that Trump benefited from a lot of late deciders breaking his way, the case that it was Comey gets stronger," Krugman wrote in a tweet.

The US intelligence community publicly accused the Russian government of being behind the hacks of emails of members of Democratic Party organizations and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, whose electronic communications were released in droves by WikiLeaks during the final weeks of the campaign.

The head of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, said on Wednesday there shouldn't be "any doubt in anybody's mind" that there was "a conscious effort by a nation-state" to affect the outcome of the election.

"So it looks more and more as if we had an election swung, in effect, by a faction of our own security sector in alliance with Putin," Krugman wrote in a subsequent tweet.

[Warren Dew]

(11-23-2016, 12:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This is a potential SHTF event. This caught me be surprise and came out of nowhere. If this pans out, it appears that the GRU might have committed a terrible act of cyberwar to undermine the election:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/h...e-results/

======================================================

'The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.

'The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source.'

It's been debunked by one of the few leftist sites that actually understands numbers (which the Clinton News Network definitely doesn't):

Demographics, not hacking, explain the election result
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demo...n-results/

[Warren Dew]

(11-21-2016, 07:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I used to worry that there would be convergence between the Kremlin / SCO and the Western Left. Some years ago I even briefly flirted with certain notions that Obama was "the one" - groomed somehow by Russian intelligence to become a Quisling.

The issue here is that people like Obama and Hillary Clinton seemed loyal to Soviet ideas from the 1970s, not to current Russian ideas.  Putin is no believer in the workers rising up against the middle class, as Marx predicted.  At most Obama could have recreated the Soviet Union here, which he seemed on track to do for a few months until the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate.

[Eric the Green]

(11-24-2016, 11:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 07:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I used to worry that there would be convergence between the Kremlin / SCO and the Western Left. Some years ago I even briefly flirted with certain notions that Obama was "the one" - groomed somehow by Russian intelligence to become a Quisling.

The issue here is that people like Obama and Hillary Clinton seemed loyal to Soviet ideas from the 1970s, not to current Russian ideas.  Putin is no believer in the workers rising up against the middle class, as Marx predicted.  At most Obama could have recreated the Soviet Union here, which he seemed on track to do for a few months until the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate.

Soviet ideas from the 1970s have no relation whatever to those of Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Soviets were entirely dedicated to military competition. Even though typical Democrats still bend to the notion that the USA needs to be top dog, it's not their primary interest.

It is the greedy corporate tyrants that you Republicans support and enable, who are the equivalent of Soviet tyrants; NOT those who support the social services that all people need. The only people who at all might feel as if what the government does to them is "Soviet," are the CEOs and wealthy financiers whose "freedom" to exploit and tyrannize over us all would be cut back. Why do you take their side, Warren? Now it's up to CA to take the reins of government service and regulation into their hands. If the Feds resist, then CA must stand its ground.

For example, the FCC still refused, even under Obama, to break up the radio monopoly which the Feds forced upon us in 1996. CA should get its own FCC and require the monopoly broken up in California. I'm going to suggest that to my state representatives. There are many other examples that the Feds are supposed to do for us, but haven't done, or will refuse to do under Trump. another example is the car mileage standards that Obama imposed, but Trump will throw away. CA started the whole trend earlier before Obama by imposing its own standards, and should go its own way again. The car makers will have to pay attention to what such a large market as CA requires.

[Warren Dew]

(11-24-2016, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 11:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 07:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I used to worry that there would be convergence between the Kremlin / SCO and the Western Left. Some years ago I even briefly flirted with certain notions that Obama was "the one" - groomed somehow by Russian intelligence to become a Quisling.

The issue here is that people like Obama and Hillary Clinton seemed loyal to Soviet ideas from the 1970s, not to current Russian ideas.  Putin is no believer in the workers rising up against the middle class, as Marx predicted.  At most Obama could have recreated the Soviet Union here, which he seemed on track to do for a few months until the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate.

Soviet ideas from the 1970s have no relation whatever to those of Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Soviets were entirely dedicated to military competition. Even though typical Democrats still bend to the notion that the USA needs to be top dog, it's not their primary interest.

Perhaps I should have been clearer:  by "Soviet ideas from the 1970s", I'm talking about the ideas in their propaganda, not how they actually operated.  You know, the Marxist-Leninist ideas that turned out not to work so well in practice, but which the Soviets pretended they still adhered to.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", that sort of thing.

[Odin]

(11-24-2016, 11:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 07:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I used to worry that there would be convergence between the Kremlin / SCO and the Western Left. Some years ago I even briefly flirted with certain notions that Obama was "the one" - groomed somehow by Russian intelligence to become a Quisling.

The issue here is that people like Obama and Hillary Clinton seemed loyal to Soviet ideas from the 1970s, not to current Russian ideas.  Putin is no believer in the workers rising up against the middle class, as Marx predicted.  At most Obama could have recreated the Soviet Union here, which he seemed on track to do for a few months until the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate.

If you think Obama and Clinton are Stalinists you are a completely out of touch with reality and deserve nothing but mockery and scorn.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-25-2016, 10:59 AM)Odin Wrote: If you think Obama and Clinton are Stalinists you are a completely out of touch with reality and deserve nothing but mockery and scorn.

This would be what I call a vile stereotype. He isn't doesn't seem willing or able to communicate with those with blue values, so he invents a conspiracy theory and attributes it too blues in general. This approach to communicating across a values gap (or failing to communicate across a values gap) is all too common, and is not unique to one side or the other.

[Eric the Green]

So Bob, what about the idea that values evolve in stages through time? I know you refer to more than the 4 economic values: hunter-gatherer, agricultural, industrial and information age; you also refer to traditional religious values, science values, the secular, democracy, free enterprise values, socialism and social-democracy, mystical, military/conquest values, tribal and its updated version as racist values, greenpeace, diversity; the whole stretch of values memes in spiral dynamics. Have you given it a read? Do you think this idea could preserve the progressive values but still encourage a degree of communication and tolerance?

[Eric the Green]

We should not look upon Russia or China as permanent enemies. We need a sane foreign policy that respects international law and acts in concert with the UN or NATO to see that it is upheld. Once the USA becomes a country on the right side of history again, some day we hope, we can act to promote peace and freedom in the world, without violating these and other laws or ideals of peace and freedom ourselves.

I certainly don' trust Trump or his horrible administration to do anything worthwhile; period. While Trump is president, the USA is an occupied country.

Nations violating other nations' borders, as Russia has done, violates international law, and needs to be resisted. However, the USA alone has no standing with this ideal, since we have violated international law ourselves in that respect.

[Eric the Green]

I agree with Senator McCain on this one. "Putin is a murderer." I hope he and Lindsay have the balls not to vote for Rex if he is nominated for State.

I think Trump's entire cabinet appointments should be filibustered.

[Eric the Green]

(12-12-2016, 02:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 08:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The polls say otherwise but we cannot know what sorts of chicanery and intrigue may arise out of nowhere, when the Kremlin is directly interfering in a US election.

Thus far the interference has not risen to the level where the actual voting process is impaired, or, where a mass disinformation op throws a monkey wrench into the works very late in the campaign season.

I must wonder - if there were obvious major interference in the election, and, against all odds, it ended up installing Trump, how would the FBI, CIA and Military react?

My guess is there would be an armed struggle for power between the illegitimate Executive Branch and its "children" in those departments.

Into the chaos - Russia / the SCO may then try to do a sneak attack while we are caught up in a Civil War (but not one of the "Red" vs "Blue" variety - it would be one within the Executive Branch).

Or, Russia / the SCO would back the Trump faction and overtly install a puppet government atop the ashes of what used to be the legitimate US Government.

No Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus. Yes Virginia, there is an SVR ... and a GRU ... mean men and women over across the ocean with their tentacles out world wide. Virginia, they have committed an act of war. This is war under high tech conditions. What shall we do?

I wonder what some "second amendment people could do."

--- unquote Donald J. Trump

[Eric the Green]

(12-12-2016, 03:36 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Eric, this is appearing to become the worst Constitutional Crisis I have ever experienced. Maybe even that you have ever experienced during your longer span.

Not sure if you noticed a few minutes ago. I thought I heard some F18s headed out toward the Pacific ADIZ. I wonder if Mr. Bear is out there doing a probe?

God only knows how far this could go. 

I'm not ready yet to make specific cosmic predictions of what and when will happen with Mr. Trump. It may be worth "a closer look." Obviously I was not ready for such an investigation. Recently I have been updating my scoring system.

Remember though that some weeks or months before it happened, I predicted the timing and result of Nixon's impeachment and resignation. I have that posted.

http://philosopherswheel.com/predictions.html