Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

I tried starting a new thread for a new topic and got chastised for it.

 

EDIT: Upon further review, it's possible that my posting style was criticized and not the fact that I started a new thread.

 

Some threads work; some don't. No big deal. It is not a personal affront if others are not interested in the subject.

[Winstonm]

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

 

What did WE miss?

[helene_t]

I tried starting a new thread for a new topic and got chastised for it.

Yes that is unfortunate. Maybe mods should make it a policy to move all ad hominem attacks to whos-the-biggest-forum-troll-in-bbf

[kenberg]

I tried starting a new thread for a new topic and got chastised for it.

 

EDIT: Upon further review, it's possible that my posting style was criticized and not the fact that I started a new thread.

 

ok, you talked me into it. I have responded to your thread.

[Kaitlyn S]

ok, you talked me into it. I have responded to your thread.

Thank you. :) I usually enjoy your insight.

[Al_U_Card]

I think this thread should end just as the Trump presidency will end: as a disaster for everyone involved.

This thread is an example of the problems inherent in our society as well as why Trump's election was a surprise (to many). Hopefully Trump will have more success and a better result at the end of his presidency.

[Winstonm]

Donald Trump is so sick that he refuses to believe his own intelligence agencies because he sees their information concerning Russia's tampering in the election as somehow diminishing his win? What the hell is wrong with this man?

 

The Washington Post reported on Friday that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government took action to favor the Trump campaign, but Trump said he doesn’t believe it.

 

“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. I don’t know why and I think it’s just ― you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week it’s another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College,” Trump said on “Fox News Sunday.”

 

“They have no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace. I mean, they have no idea,” Trump said.

 

Trump added that he doesn’t believe that the CIA put out the story in The Washington Post.

 

“I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country. And frankly, I think they’re putting it out,” Trump said. “And it’s ridiculous.”

 

And what the hell is wrong with all you people who voted for this nutcase?

[onoway]

Blame it on the Supermoon. The last one was in 1948

 

"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey."

[y66]

This thread is an example of the problems inherent in our society as well as why Trump's election was a surprise (to many). Hopefully Trump will have more success and a better result at the end of his presidency.

Indeed (the inherent problems part). Perhaps posters on this thread and successor threads can give some thought to discussing what success means -- what are the goals and what are the criteria and weights for measuring achievement -- not just for Trump people and not just for the U.S. Isn't this the question that unites all of us?

 

Perhaps it would also be useful for OPs to establish criteria (if they care) for determining off topic posts and also delegate mod authority to OPs to keep thread pollution from getting out of hand. Isn't this where the discussion went off the rails?

[kenberg]

What do we regard as success? I think it is a critical discussion. I'm not so sure I support giving mod authority to the OP. For one thing, it just doesn't sound right to me. Put here is a practical objection: With power comes responsibility. I would be reluctant, as a thread starter, to take the responsibility for moderating the comments of others. For example, while I find racism and sexism offensive, I also find the current style of finding racism and sexism in what i often see as attempts at honest discussion to be offensive. I have said that I strongly support immigration I do make a distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration, and I think it reasonable to make substantial efforts to control illegal immigration. Early in the refugee crisis in Europe I said that I thought the enormity of it would cause substantial problems. This was treated as evidence of xenophobia (when I first heard the word, w/o the spelling to guide me, I thought maybe this was zenophobia, an irrational fear of paradoxes). Mostly I can stand being called names, although I don't think it is of much use as an argument. I don't think an OP should have to umpire any such issues.

 

I regard the forum as a useful exchange of ideas. I am happy enough with the monitoring as it is. I recognize the problem of someone coming in and finding it fun to create havoc. Mostly we have not had that problem. I suggest we keep to the current system. Which is, I think a real complement to the monitoring as it is now done.

 

But back to the beginning of this reply. What would we see as good, what do we see as not so good? I doubt that we all agree. It's tricky.

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed (the inherent problems part). Perhaps posters on this thread and successor threads can give some thought to discussing what success means -- what are the goals and what are the criteria and weights for measuring achievement -- not just for Trump people and not just for the U.S. Isn't this the question that unites all of us?

 

Perhaps it would also be useful for OPs to establish criteria (if they care) for determining off topic posts and also delegate mod authority to OPs to keep thread pollution from getting out of hand. Isn't this where the discussion went off the rails?

Exactly. The free exchange of ideas (opinion, viewpoints, understanding) is not to seek correction or validation. Simply expression and the enlarging and improvement of meaning and comprehension. The subsequent application of logic and reason as well as (human) sentiment provides a better perception of the actual reality and not just the subjective appreciation.

Arrogance, disdain and belligerance are both unnecessary and counter productive.

[andrei]

Life might get interesting

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

 

Note that Halderman has some serious chops in this area.

 

Please note: Much as I despise the thought of a Trump Presidency, I'm not sure whether this fight is a good one to wage.

Its very unclear whether you could come to a definitive finding.

Its possible that the fight could be more destructive than the alternative.

 

At the same time, if this is legitimate then we have some serious issues to figure out.

 

FWIW, I think that we'd all be a lot happier if the entire country was using a voting system like the one in use in Arizona.

It has some very good properties and seems well designed. (For example, it uses electronic voting machines that produce a physical/audit-able paper ballot)

 

 

Apparently, DT got 162 more votes after the Wisconsin recount. Was the recount hacked?

 

At this rate, if they recount in all 50 states, he might win the popular vote also.

[Al_U_Card]

Not sure if all this stuff about hacking qualifies as "fake" news...

 

Clearly, rather than a thorough look at the errors they made, it is easier to blame deplorables, Russians, etc. for their failings.

 

Sour grapes from sore losers. Trump is going to up-end the status quo in several areas.(DoE and EPA for sure.) Sadly, the financial sector appears safe from scrutiny (and maybe even less than currently) much to our risk and peril.

[mikeh]

Not sure if all this stuff about hacking qualifies as "fake" news...

 

Clearly, rather than a thorough look at the errors they made, it is easier to blame deplorables, Russians, etc. for their failings.

 

Sour grapes from sore losers. Trump is going to up-end the status quo in several areas.(DoE and EPA for sure.) Sadly, the financial sector appears safe from scrutiny (and maybe even less than currently) much to our risk and peril.

It's only fake news if it is false news, and the evidence, even that known to the public, seems pretty clear. I mean: does anyone really think that the RNC wasn't hacked by whoever hacked the DNC? And, if so, does anyone really think that there was nothing from the RNC hack that wouldn't have been harmful to the republicans at large if not trump in particular?

 

I know trump doesn't use email (or so I've heard) but I cannot imagine that people close to him don't....does anyone think that such sources weren't hacked?

 

We know for sure that WikiLeaks is unfriendly towards Clinton and Obama, and the US government in general, if for no other reason than the attitude displayed by the US government towards WikiLeaks...see Chelsea Manning as an example. But why would WikiLeaks not release republican 'dirt' unless they didn't have them? Plus there seems to be a significant history of effective hacking going on for political purposes with the Russians in Europe, the Baltic and Ukraine, so meddling in the US election would be a logical step.

 

Given that the margin of victory in the electoral college was about 100,000 votes in 3 states, it isn't a stretch to infer that the Russians were able to tip the balance, if only by having a relatively small impact on suppressing Clinton turn out.

 

It is very easy to allow the lies of Trump to replace thinking.

 

And upending the status quo at the EPA? Of course, you would think that destroying years of progress in improving environmental safeguards is a good thing...

[helene_t]

does anyone really think that the RNC wasn't hacked by whoever hacked the DNC? And, if so, does anyone really think that there was nothing from the RNC hack that wouldn't have been harmful to the republicans at large if not trump in particular?

Maybe I am missing something, but my take is:

 

- I have no clue why there have been no major RNC hacks. Maybe RNC has better data protection. Maybe it is because Assange doesn't like the Obama administration. Maybe it is because the Russians (or ISIS or Nigel Farage or whoever) wanted Trump to win.

 

- If there had been a leak it would probably reveal something juicy but on the other hand, there is som much compromising information out there about Trump and about Republicans in general that the law of diminishing returns has kicked in long time ago.

[y66]

Guest post from Paul Krugman:

 

The C.I.A., according to The Washington Post, has now determined that hackers working for the Russian government worked to tilt the 2016 election to Donald Trump. This has actually been obvious for months, but the agency was reluctant to state that conclusion before the election out of fear that it would be seen as taking a political role.

 

Meanwhile, the F.B.I. went public 10 days before the election, dominating headlines and TV coverage across the country with a letter strongly implying that it might be about to find damning new evidence against Hillary Clinton — when it turned out, literally, to have found nothing at all.

 

Did the combination of Russian and F.B.I. intervention swing the election? Yes. Mrs. Clinton lost three states – Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – by less than a percentage point, and Florida by only slightly more. If she had won any three of those states, she would be president-elect. Is there any reasonable doubt that Putin/Comey made the difference?

 

And it wouldn’t have been seen as a marginal victory, either. Even as it was, Mrs. Clinton received almost three million more votes than her opponent, giving her a popular margin close to that of George W. Bush in 2004.

 

So this was a tainted election. It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong, and the result won’t be overturned. But the result was nonetheless illegitimate in important ways; the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement.

 

The question now is what to do with that horrifying knowledge in the months and years ahead.

Krugmman is hardly an impartial observer or one to play loose with facts. What to do indeed?

[Al_U_Card]

Guest post from Paul Krugman:

 

 

Krugmman is hardly an impartial observer or one to play loose with facts. What to do indeed?

Erm unsubstantiated innuendo perhaps? The CIA is hardly reliable for more than a self-interested take (Why weren't they on the scene actively defending US cyber-security?)

Krugman is firmly in the Obama-Hilbilly camp with an obvious bias.

Obama "involved" his office in Brexit... pot meet kettle?

With Trump positioned firmly "against" China, why didnt their hackers intercede on Clinton's behalf?

What a load of twaddle.

[cherdano]

And our conspiracy theory overlord does not disappoint, as usual.

 

Erm unsubstantiated innuendo perhaps? The CIA is hardly reliable for more than a self-interested take (Why weren't they on the scene actively defending US cyber-security?)

Krugman is firmly in the Obama-Hilbilly camp with an obvious bias.

Obama "involved" his office in Brexit... pot meet kettle?

With Trump positioned firmly "against" China, why didnt their hackers intercede on Clinton's behalf?

What a load of twaddle.

[Winstonm]

It's only fake news if it is false news, and the evidence, even that known to the public, seems pretty clear. I mean: does anyone really think that the RNC wasn't hacked by whoever hacked the DNC? And, if so, does anyone really think that there was nothing from the RNC hack that wouldn't have been harmful to the republicans at large if not trump in particular?

 

I know trump doesn't use email (or so I've heard) but I cannot imagine that people close to him don't....does anyone think that such sources weren't hacked?

 

We know for sure that WikiLeaks is unfriendly towards Clinton and Obama, and the US government in general, if for no other reason than the attitude displayed by the US government towards WikiLeaks...see Chelsea Manning as an example. But why would WikiLeaks not release republican 'dirt' unless they didn't have them? Plus there seems to be a significant history of effective hacking going on for political purposes with the Russians in Europe, the Baltic and Ukraine, so meddling in the US election would be a logical step.

 

Given that the margin of victory in the electoral college was about 100,000 votes in 3 states, it isn't a stretch to infer that the Russians were able to tip the balance, if only by having a relatively small impact on suppressing Clinton turn out.

 

It is very easy to allow the lies of Trump to replace thinking.

 

And upending the status quo at the EPA? Of course, you would think that destroying years of progress in improving environmental safeguards is a good thing...

 

More likely the data was stored offsite so it could be claimed that (technically) the RNC itself was not hacked....

[PassedOut]

Maybe Trump and Paul Ryan will team up: Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists

 

THE BIG IDEA: Donald Trump has decided to risk a confirmation fight, officially nominating ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state this morning. Tillerson and Trump had no previous relationship, but the Texas oilman and the New York developer hit it off when they met face to face. One of the things that they have in common is their shared affection for the works of Ayn Rand, the libertarian heroine who celebrated laissez-faire capitalism.

 

The president-elect said this spring that he’s a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the main character in “The Fountainhead.” Roark, played by Gary Cooper in the film adaptation, is an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints. “It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions. That book relates to ... everything,” Trump told Kirsten Powers for a piece in USA Today.

 

...

 

Some of Rand’s scenes also don’t hold up well in a culture that’s become more intolerant of sexual assault and skeptical of patriarchy. Roark, the character Trump says he identifies with, rapes a woman in “The Fountainhead,” for example.

So Trump does have a philosophy after all!

[kenberg]

Guest post from Paul Krugman:

 

 

Krugmman is hardly an impartial observer or one to play loose with facts. What to do indeed?

 

 

I am often not fond of Krugman and this is no exception, but I agree that the question now is what to do. I think much of the Democratic leadership is still in the denial stage.

What to do?

 

1. The election is over. Krugman accepts this, not everyone does. The recount effort, by Stein or by anyone, was misguided. Suggesting that electors in the Electoral College could be swayed is a very bad idea. It's over. Donald Trump takes office in January.

 

2. Putin/Comey???? I really hope Krugman can tell the difference between Putin and Comey, both the men themselves and their actions. Clinton's inability to deal effectively with the email problem cast doubt on her skills. Problems with Putin are another thing entirely. Putin and Comey should not be joined by a /, they should not be joined at all.

 

3. The dispute over Russian motivation that the FBI and the CIA seem to be having. It is always difficult to conclusively prove motivation, but it is reasonable to assume that people intend the consequences of their actions, especially when the actions require effort and planning. The thing to do is to get the fullest possible picture of what happened. And then address it. Reasonable people will make reasonable conclusions about motivation, but focus on what happened and how to stop it from happening. This relates back to point 1. Democrats should be very clear that the election is a settled matter. It could then be the case that Republicans and Democrats could work together in addressing this very serious problem. It is my understanding that more than a few Republicans would be interested in a joint approach.

 

4. The election was not illegitimate. It was, in my view, a disaster. But it was not illegitimate. Maybe this should be point 1.

[Winstonm]

I am often not fond of Krugman and this is no exception, but I agree that the question now is what to do. I think much of the Democratic leadership is still in the denial stage.

What to do?

 

1. The election is over. Krugman accepts this, not everyone does. The recount effort, by Stein or by anyone, was misguided. Suggesting that electors in the Electoral College could be swayed is a very bad idea. It's over. Donald Trump takes office in January.

 

2. Putin/Comey???? I really hope Krugman can tell the difference between Putin and Comey, both the men themselves and their actions. Clinton's inability to deal effectively with the email problem cast doubt on her skills. Problems with Putin are another thing entirely. Putin and Comey should not be joined by a /, they should not be joined at all.

 

3. The dispute over Russian motivation that the FBI and the CIA seem to be having. It is always difficult to conclusively prove motivation, but it is reasonable to assume that people intend the consequences of their actions, especially when the actions require effort and planning. The thing to do is to get the fullest possible picture of what happened. And then address it. Reasonable people will make reasonable conclusions about motivation, but focus on what happened and how to stop it from happening. This relates back to point 1. Democrats should be very clear that the election is a settled matter. It could then be the case that Republicans and Democrats could work together in addressing this very serious problem. It is my understanding that more than a few Republicans would be interested in a joint approach.

 

4. The election was not illegitimate. It was, in my view, a disaster. But it was not illegitimate. Maybe this should be point 1.

 

I think you are right - it should not be Putin/Comey but Putin-KGB/Comey-FBI. It is certainly not unheard of for a government policing agency to be used to sway elections. I would suggest The Man Without a Face: the Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin by Masha Gessen as a primer for how this is done. This, to me, is an extremely troubling quote from her book:

 

No one is easier to manipulate than a man who exaggerates his own influence.

[ggwhiz]

I'm not an American but am very interested in the confirmation process and know nothing about it.

 

What's the timeline? It seems that a few of Trumps nominees might not pass the smell test. Sessions for AG? Who else?

[Winstonm]

Maybe Trump and Paul Ryan will team up: Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists

 

 

So Trump does have a philosophy after all!

 

Amazing to me that these juvenile ideas continue to pop up in positions of authority.

[kenberg]

I think you are right - it should not be Putin/Comey but Putin-KGB/Comey-FBI. It is certainly not unheard of for a government policing agency to be used to sway elections. I would suggest The Man Without a Face: the Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin by Masha Gessen as a primer for how this is done. This, to me, is an extremely troubling quote from her book:

 

 

 

Whether I was right or not in my strong rejection of the linking Putin/Comey, this re-formulation linking Putin-KGB/Comey-FBI. is not at all better, as far as I am concerned. If Clinton wants to see the cause of her problems with email, she can start by looking at herself and her staff. She could look at the beginning, or she could look at the endgame with Huma Abedin saying that she just had no idea how the emails got on Wiener's computer. Klutzy is too mild a word for that operation. She may have been, well ok she was, treated unfairly but someone who hopes to be president is supposed to be able to cope with an unfair world. So whether it is written as Putin/Comey or as Putin-KGB/Comey-FBI makes little difference to me. Blaming Comey for her lack of judgment is not going to sell. Not to me anyway, and I think not to many. Dems have a lot of thinking to do over why they lost. If their conclusion is Comey, they are not facing reality.

 

 

Dealing with Putin, and cyber attacks in general, is urgent and of great importance to Rs and Ds alike. I hope that it is addressed.