Media Elites Laying Groundwork to Endlessly Contest Trump Win September 9, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unbelievable BS.
Reader MFG – who perhaps had a bit different reaction to this op-ed than I did – sent me a link to this very strange editorial at the Washington Post by the exceedingly liberal Anne Applebaum hypothesizing that the Putin government in Russia is actively trying to subvert and radically influence the 2016 presidential election through electoral fraud.
There’s a lot of assumptions built into this piece, which I’ll try to unpack a bit as we go. But the most interesting thing to me is this: it indicates the enormous fear the “elites” have of a Trump election, and seems to lay the groundwork for declaring a Trump win null and void through endless electoral challenges on a scale well beyond the 2000 Bush/Gore fiasco.
See what you think:
“U.S. investigates potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections.”………[The foundation of this claim is that the electronic voting machines installed after the 2000 election are eminently hackable and the Russians may be trying to hack them. Didn’t many conservatives warn, at the time, that this was exactly the problem with electronic voting, that it was incredibly vulnerable to this kind of manipulation? But let’s back up a minute and review the history a bit. Which party has almost always been the perpetrator or mass electoral fraud in this country, going back decades? Which fraud does the media almost always try to pooh-pooh and dismiss until decades after the fact, when they finally admit that, yes, Johnson did steal the 1948 senatorial election from Coke Stevenson, or Kennedy the 1960 from Nixon, etc. There were cases in 2012]
……… I think the scenario needs to be fully spelled out. And so, based on Russia’s past tactics in other countries, assuming it acts more or less the same way it acts elsewhere, here’s what could happen over the next two months:
1. Trump, who is advised by several people with Russian links, will repeat and strengthen his “the election is rigged” narrative. The “polls are lying,” the “real” people aren’t being counted, the corrupt elites/Clinton clan/mainstream media are colluding to prevent him from taking office. Trump will continue to associate himself with Brexit — a vote that pollsters really did get wrong — and with Nigel Farage, the far-right British politician who now promotes Trump (and has, incidentally, just been offered his own show on RT, the Russian state-sponsored TV channel). [This is nothing but guilt by association. Has Trump been saying this lately? Why would he, when many polls now show the election tied, or him with a slim lead?]
2. Russia will continue to distribute and publish the material its hackers have already obtained from attacks on the Democratic National Committee, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, former NATO supreme commander Gen. Philip Breedlove and probably others. The point will be to discredit not just Hillary Clinton but also the U.S. democratic process and, again, the “elite” who supposedly run it……. [Again, quite a bit of assumption built into this, and also, selective memory. Is it proven the Russians hacked the DNC and/or Hillary’s server? Who placed all that classified and other very senstiive information on easily hackable systems? If the Russians laid the entire design specs for the Buluga missile system on a park bench in Times Square, is it wrong to pick it up and study it? Isn’t that pretty much what Hillary did? And I find any attempt to discredit Soros something commendable, not damnable]
3. On or before Election Day, Russian hackers will seek to hack the U.S. voting system. We certainly know that this is possible: Hackers have already targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona, according to The Post, and the FBI has informed Arizona officials that it suspects Russian hacking teams……..[Which, again, who was pushing for easily manipulated electronic voting? Wasn’t it the democrats and their media allies screaming for this in the wake of their 2000 loss? And now that it proves that such systems are just as vulnerable as conservatives always feared, we’re suddenly supposed to do something about it? So this is just a case of democrats selectively complaining when the system they demanded, and which they may well have manipulated in the past, is now used against them?]
4. The Russians attempt to throw the election. They might try to get Trump elected. Alternatively — and this would, of course, be even more devastating — they might try to rig the election for Clinton, perhaps leaving a trail of evidence designed to connect the rigging operation to Clinton’s campaign……. [Can you see the setup? The bit about Hillary is a throwaway, the real attempt is to undermine the credibility of a Trump win. At least, that’s how I read it]
It just keeps going, deeper and deeper, so I skip that
7. And what’s the downside for Trump? If he wins, he wins. If he loses — then there are all kinds of ways to make money from the “election was rigged” narrative.
That last bit in bold is the tip of the hand to me. There is an unstated but very clear claim being made throughout the piece, that Trump is somehow in cahoots with Putin to throw the election his way. Yes, there is cover language thrown in to distract from this point, but with polls now showing Trump roughly even with Hillary, I take this as a total panic mode piece that is starting to cast about for ways to not just explain a Hillary loss, but seek to repair it.
An election was almost stolen in broad daylight in 2000, where all the evidence sided with a Bush win in Florida (even though leftists continue to pretend to this day that it was the other way around). I see the groundwork being laid here for another attempt, this time cast as undoing some phantom influence from a hated and feared competitor state.
PS – Is Putin more loathed and feared because he leads a powerful and often opposing state outside the Western liberal consensus, or because he is rightly perceived as being in some ways – admittedly, for selfish reasons – the champion of a conservative reaction against the amoral social agenda of the sexular pagan left? I’m not one of those who lionizes Putin for his strong stands against the decadent West, I’m convinced he isn’t doing it out of principle, but at times the enemy of my enemy can be my friend, no?