People fondly deny reality. Denial starts early. There is no Santa Claus—but those of us “in” on the truth are encouraged to keep the truth from little ones lest their hopes be dashed.
After the debacle by which an individual now occupies the Oval Office though he lost by some three million popular votes, the first denial was of Russian meddling.
The first denial has little credence.
The United States Congress has voted to impose sanctions on Russia for Russia having meddled in the 2016 election. Prior to that action, the Speaker of the House—several months ago—said “of course they did” when asked about Russian interference in the election.
The interference took various forms. Machines were hacked—not in “real time” but before the machines reached polls. The internet was weaponized—searches would result with items placed in such a manner as to mislead someone. Members of the campaign of the individual who claimed victory in the Electoral College colluded with officials from Russia.
The second denial is that the meddling had any “effect” on the election.
Evidence continues to mount in regard to specific precincts having been targeted by hacks. The total number of votes to be “swung” for the November scam—about 40,000, in three States—to flip the sufficient number of votes in the Electoral College is relatively small. At a convention for voting machines this weekend, apparently machines on display were hacked easily.
Of course, one can infer that if Vladimir Putin spent all that money and expended all that effort to steal the election and the money was wasted and the effort brought him zilch, there would be a few hundred murders in the Soviet...sorry, Russia, of those who had failed.
The two major political parties ran, as lead candidates, probably the two most unpopular candidates ever to vie for the office of President of the United States.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to be the candidate of the Democratic Party no matter who did what. After then-Senator George McGovern lost the 1972 election in a landslide to then-President Richard Nixon, the Democratic Party initiated “reforms” to “protect” the Democratic Party—from a populist candidate winning the nomination. Super Delegates can offset the minds of the voters who foolishly follow their own minds and vote for the “wrong”—in the eyes of party leaders—candidate.
In other words, the “Democratic” Party, ironically, has a system to thwart democratic tendencies in the nomination of the candidate for president.
The Democratic Party’s rules at least are somewhat readable. As nearly as I could tell, from ruminations of various talking heads—absent David Byrne—during the Republican National Convention, the Democrats’ rules are something like General Orders of the Federation on “Star Trek,” whereas the regulations and rules of the Republican Party are akin to those of the Romulans—we know only the ways in which things can turn out, and not the rules and what have you by which those results are reached.
The bottom line is that the election was between two candidates who made the election close enough in the three “swing” States that Russian hackers—be they employees of the GRU or patriotic teenagers (as Putin referred to them a few weeks ago) acting independently (in a dictatorship—could flip the few votes necessary and place Putin’s candidate of choice in the Oval Office.
One question—a hypothetical question (for some)—needs to be answered.
Do Americans want a puppet of the Soviet Uni....sorry, Russia, in the office of President of the United States?
Our national passion for celebrations of “freedom” while we incarcerate, proportionately and totally, more people than any other nation on the planet makes claims to title “Land of the Free” ring hollow. Enough people picked up the slogan “Make America Great Again,” and beat the crap out of counter-demonstrators at rallies for the current occupant of the Oval Office, that “Land of the Free” becomes just another slogan, like “Land of Lincoln” on some of the license plates on cars from Illinois.
If Putin was able to place his choice in the Oval Office, the right to vote was stolen from all Americans. Obviously the right to vote of those who voted for the candidate with the (far) greater popular vote had their right to vote swiped. So, too, did those people who voted for the Republican candidate, unless people in the latter group voted for the GOP candidate because they wanted a strong-man style President, akin to the dictator of the Soviet Un....sorry, Russia, to be President.
There are several reasons why we would not want our head of state to be a puppet of any foreign power. Those reasons, for now, aside, it has been established that Russia interfered in the election—and not only the election for President, but also of down-ballot (Congressional seats) races—sufficiently that to doubt the matter is silly. If it can be established Russia affected the outcome of the election—would those who defend the election still defend it?
In history, one insomniac issued orders, some quite petty and most quite harmful, with no apparent grasp of an overall approach to how the country should be run. He was a populist who preyed on racism and actually won a plurality to claim his country’s highest position. He, like the current occupant of our Oval Office, encouraged infighting amongst his subordinates. The result there was that Martin Bormann, at the end, ran the Third Reich’s daily affairs.
Every once in a while, an apologist for authoritarianism will say, “At least Mussolini made the trains run on time.”
Sometimes I think people in this country want a dictatorial leader, foolish as such a notion might be. It is easier to give the responsibility such matters to someone else. People can watch sports and enjoy life while government is run like a business by a man so successul in business he bankrupted several corporations he ran.
We should ask the question, though—will people still defend the results of the election if it is established to have been stolen by a former agent of the KGB?
I hope people would say “no.” Unfortunately, I think there are people who might rise the fence, or even say tle results were fine—that Putin has been a great leader. (He has not been a great leader for his own country, where the economy is in the toilet and people lack freedom to speak out against him.)
Until a great many people who thought they voted for an American candidate—and not a puppet for a foreign dictatorship—realize they lost their right to vote and that Vladimir Putin has urinated on our political system, the results of a sham election will stand.