To hack or not to hack

Russia covert cyberattacks

Apparently, the Russians decided to hack and there are many who think this had a negative effect on Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency. Taking it a step further, the U.S. has concluded that Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the hacking. I did an earlier post, "Why did Putin want Donald Trump in the White House?" that offered two options...

One, Putin feels Trump will look ridiculous to the rest of the world with his show business background and lack of experience, thus, make the U.S. more vulnerable in foreign affairs.
Two, the president-elect would undo all the sanctions placed on Russia by the United States putting Russia in a better financial position.

Any way you cut it, this country loses. Here's a statement by NBC News...

"The CIA has concluded that Russia mounted a covert intelligence operation to influence the U.S. election in an effort to help Donald Trump win, a congressional official knowledgeable on the matter told NBC News."

But the Senate's resident idiot, Mitch McConnell has rejected bipartisan pressure to create a select committee to investigate what has now been confirmed is Russian cyberattacks designed to tamper with the U.S. 2016 election. McConnell thinks his two Senate minions, Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), both on the Senate Intelligence Committee, can handle it. Outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says...

"...that keeping the investigation limited to the committees could be an intentional effort by McConnell to limit the effectiveness of the probe."

Now you can understand why I have designated Mitch McConnell the resident Senate idiot. The GOP won the election, McConnell was reelected recently--six more years of idiocy--and this slime ball is afraid an investigation will uncover the fact that everything above is accurate. And that Trump could have colluded with Putin to win the election. Another known fact is that the president-elect has yearned to do business in Russia for years with no luck. His connections to the country span three decades and Time has shown... 

"...since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle."

The election may be over, and the electors may have confirmed Donald Trump's presidency, but the mystery continues of just how did the 2016 election really conclude. 

Lions share of nation skeptical of Trump presidency

President Obama entered the White House with American optimism at 32%, 34% of the country satisfied with his election. Donald Trump will take office with 22% optimism, 23% satisfied with his election. But the kicker is 29% are pessimistic about the president-elect, with this figure only 9% under Obama. NBC reports, "That's a significantly worse outlook than Americans expressed after the elections of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush." I have no doubt that Donald Trump has several excuses to justify these numbers but an election after-market has spoken.

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates says...

"Usually elections settle arguments and the nation comes together, at least in the short term. Today, hard feelings persist on both sides of the partisan divide. It's as if the 2016 campaign has never ended."

It appears to me that all this skepticism is well justified by the people Trump has chosen to support him...

Steve Mnuchin, Sec. of Treasury who worked at Goldman Sachs for 17 years, a firm that had to be bailed out by the government due to risky investments. Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen. who was denied a federal judgeship. Andrew Puzder, Sec. of Labor, a hardliner against any increase in minimum wage. Betsy Devos, Sec. Education, wants to get rid of public school system. Tom Price, Sec. Health and Human Services, wants to scuttle Obamacare. These are only a few and many are billionaires.

A statistic that cannot be ignored is the fact that 46% of the American public still gives him a poor rating, compared to 40% who are positive. And the confidence in Donald Trump's election all comes from his base voters, not those who didn't vote for him. There are 92% of Trump voters who believe the man can bring change to Washington--with Clinton only 20%--but have these people considered just what kind of change they want, and is this also what the president-elect wants. So far, Donald Trump has not convinced many of us he isn't in all of this just to promote his business.

T-rump stupid things

Gave Senator Lindsey Graham’s personal phone number to the entire world.

Lindsay Graham

Possibly because Graham said, “I have never been comfortable with Donald Trump as our Republican nominee.”

Thanks to BGR.com.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article106928442.html#storylink=cpy

Dump the Electoral Party...NOW

It's happened twice now, during the last three elections, the popular vote winner loses the election. It was made official yesterday by an antiquated system called the Electoral College. Donald Trump with 306 votes, Hillary Clinton with 232--hardly a landslide--Clinton ending up with more than 2.5 million popular votes than Trump. The nation did not elect Donald Trump, the college did. And that is what is wrong. NBC reports on efforts, post-election...

"A handful of Democrats and even a few Republican electors have embarked on an unusual effort to deny Trump the victory — or at the very least, raise the specter of changing the election."

And more...

"Electors in three states have gone to court seeking the chance to vote their mind; another resigned to avoid the vote altogether. One Republican elector in Texas has publicly said he will not vote for Trump, although his state voted overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate."

Here's a quote from The Nation, a leading Progressive publication...

"The Electoral College is an abomination: an antidemocratic relic of the unconscionable compromises made during America’s founding that should never have been allowed to linger into the 21st century." 

As an example of the inadequacy of the Electoral College, Donald Trump took Michigan with less than 11,000 votes out of a total of 4.8 million cast, .0023%. Supporters of the College claim it protects the smaller states from being overrun by the larger ones. When, in fact, five of the 10 smallest states, Vermont, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine, as well as the District of Columbia had Clinton leading Trump. As I understand it, this is one of the major reasons the Founding Fathers concocted this nuisance. 

And here is something that is almost as frightening as Donald Trump being elected President. The Nation surmises "that GOP strategists will again try to implement schemes that would distribute electoral votes based on the popular vote in congressional districts, which would allow partisans to gerrymander both the US House and the Electoral College." Because of the incompetency of the Democratic Nat'l Committee, led by disgraced Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the GOP already leads in state legislatures and governor's offices.

The bipartisan National Popular Vote initiative is making some headway with a compact that says the state electors must cast their votes with the popular vote. Ten states have signed up totaling 165 votes, but the compact can only take effect when more than 270 is reached. Barbara Boxer introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, but with a Republican Congress, and the GOP already having won the election, its likelihood of getting anywhere is doubtful. In a final note, The Nation commented...

"...something must be done to address the structural absurdity of elections that allow losers to become presidents."

And that could not be more appropriate. 

What do Republicans have that Democrats don't?

PASSION. It's very simple, you can see it in all factions of the conservatives; when the vote is critical, they turn out. The Democrats, or at least most of them, put their tails between their legs and just stay home when the heat is on. it's pathetic and God knows how many elections we've lost in the last few years. On the bright side, Bernie Sanders brought out the Progressives, and think they did their part in the primaries but Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee had the whole thing rigged from the start. Bernie should have won.

On the other hand, President Obama said on Monday that the reason for Democratic voters not showing up was the fault of the Clinton campaign for not hitting the Dems' strongholds. He cited an instance where, in his support of Clinton, he wanted to go to Iowa where he had won handily but the Clinton people felt he was better needed elsewhere. He also added, "...candidates in the future should ignore at their own peril the places Democrats haven't traditionally performed well." Further...

"...some Democrats have accused Clinton of maintaining a relaxed campaign schedule, bypassing states like Wisconsin and Iowa where Obama won in 2012."

The blame game is, of course, easy to play with hindsight, but the real question here is what brought out more Republican voters than Democrats? We know there was a huge wave of demand for change, to get rid of the Washington that has only performed for the politicians and given us the same crap year after year. Donald Trump seemed to fill that bill and was elected, but we still have a Congress that has an approval rating of 13% and can't seem to get rid of them. Much of this can be attributed to the GOP gerrymandering that Wasserman and the DNC saw fit to do nothing about over the years.

Reports are that the Republican turnout surged this year while Democrats were just dormant. With Obama the Dems' stronghold was the college educated, young and non-white. Bernie Sanders had two of these categories, could have possibly gotten the other, and one must wonder, if he had won the primary, would the election outcome have been different. There is one bit of difference in Democrats that is recently becoming obvious; the Progressive faction of the party...Bernie's people. I am a Progressive, passionate about those beliefs and a firm supporter of the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't even consider not voting and frankly don't understand those who stayed home from the polls on November 8, and let what happened come about. Donald Trump. Here's the kicker, Gallup reports that as of October 2014, polling found that 43% of Americans identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans. There are 4% more of us than them and we still can't win an election. It's a disgrace and something that should make those slackers sit up and take notice. The big question is, can we expect them to turn out in 2018.

T-rump stupid things

“Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” (2015)

Thanks to UK Independent

Why did Putin want Donald Trump in the White House?

Donald Trump is supposed to be such a savvy businessman, wouldn't you expect that to translate into at least a crafty politician? Vladimir Putin doesn't think so. Steve Benen of MSNBC says Putin feels with Trump in the White House the United States will look "...ridiculous, having an unprepared and unqualified television personality leading a global superpower." He thinks it will be easier for Russia to exploit America’s "self-inflicted wound." WOW! We knew we had a psychopathic clown going to Washington, but this observation, if true, is really frightening.

NBC News reported recently that "...17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Vladimir Putin’s government was responsible for the cyber-attacks." Apparently, this has been widely accepted to mean that Russia did interfere in the U.S. 2016 election, some even saying that Putin, himself, led the effort. In contrast, the Trump administration is blaming it on China or saying it didn't even happen, according to MSNBC. And even more conjecture in what Russia's Putin might be thinking...

“You obviously can’t count on the United States to be a credible global leader anymore; just look at who the Americans chose as their president.”

WOW again, but true in the sense that the deranged American public elected this lunatic.

And then Benen gets to the financial side of the argument. Barack Obama could be depended on to slap sanctions on Russia when they became overly hostile and aggressive. It is possible, maybe even likely, that Donald Trump will lift them for his old Russian buddy. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus refused to confirm one way or the other. Okay, we're talking about Russia, but what can other countries be thinking, especially any that have an ax to grind with the U.S. This country is on the precipice of disaster and Donald Trump is the one that can push it off.