 |
|
In another vain effort to educate the ignorant, commonly
Posted on: December 16, 2016 at 07:54:01 CT
GA Tiger MU
Posts:
252561
Member For:
26.44 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
referred to as democrats, this pretty much sums it up. Not that they'll come out of their safe spaces.
Sorry, Democrats, But Putin Didn't Steal The U.S. Election For Trump
Russian strong man Vladimir Putin no doubt has cyber-hacked the U.S., but almost certainly didn't influence the election in Donald Trump's favor, say White House and election officials.
The Democrats' bizarre claims of "Russian interference" in the 2016 election are looking increasingly threadbare and desperate. Yes, the Russians constantly hack our computer systems, a fact that even President Obama knows. But no, their hacking efforts had no impact on the election. None.
And that's not just us talking. The FBI says there's no evidence the Russians affected the outcome. The office of the Director of National Intelligence — which governs all 17 U.S. spy agencies — says there's no evidence. Department of Homeland Security says there's no evidence. Attorney General Loretta Lynch says there's no evidence. Heck, even President Obama admits there's no evidence that Russian hacking cost the Democrats the election.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, not exactly known for being friendly toward Trump or other Republicans, was especially adamant in his rejection of the claims.
"I think it's important to note that on election night we had our guard up for this," he said. "We had our crisis action team ready on election night. We did not see anything that amounted to altering ballot counts or degrading the ability to report election results, nothing out of the ordinary."
As for claims by the Democrats that the CIA believes that Russian election-hacking was intended to help Donald Trump, that too is not exactly correct. The CIA has issued no official report at all on these claims. They are the product of CIA insiders, whose motives and political allegiances are murky at best. This may be why the CIA and some other spy agencies have refused to brief Congress on the supposed cyber-hacking of our election.
The Democrats have for decades heaped ridicule on Republicans in general and conservatives in particular for their "paranoid" preoccupation with the old Soviet Union. Of course, being concerned about a regime that slaughtered more than 30 million of its own people doesn't seem to warrant being called "paranoid," but rather "realistic." Such a regime is in fact a danger to humanity.
But now the shoe's on the other foot, and Democrats are bleating about Vladimir Putin's resurgent Russia stealing the election through nefarious computer hacking tricks. Talk about paranoia.
The truth is, Democrats are still in the denial phase of their loss. That's why Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta's Center for American Progress is basically no longer a "think tank," if it ever was — it's now focused on finding a way to deny Donald Trump his Electoral College victory. Meanwhile, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig is offering pro bono legal aid to those who would reject Trump. And of course, there's a full-throated chorus of media types — led, inevitably we suppose, by The New York Times' Paul Krugman — who are calling the results into question, despite zero evidence for the claim.
They won't win, of course. But that's probably beside the point.
The Democrats' game seems to be this: Trump now has an estimated 306 electors to Hillary's 232. If Democrats can get 36 or so "faithless" electors to switch their votes, it won't give Hillary the election, but it will deny Trump the 270 electoral votes he needs for an outright victory in the Electoral College. Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where Trump would no doubt win — but his claim to any mandate would be diminished.
Democrats could, with some plausible justification, say Trump didn't actually win the election.
That would be the first salvo in an effort to weaken Trump and turn him into a lame duck before his first term even gets underway.
The Democrats have chosen to make a travesty of our system of elections, refusing to accept the outcome of a legal election by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our voting system. But they should be wary. If they manage to throw this election into doubt, as they did in 2000, people will get very angry. This was a change election, one in which many people who usually vote for Democrats voted for the other candidates instead.
If Democrats think disenfranchised Trump voters will thank them for interfering in the Electoral College, they're likely to be very disappointed. It might backfire spectacularly. Democratic sour grapes might soon turn to vinegar if the GOP wins a filibuster-proof Senate majority in two years.
Edited by GA Tiger at 07:55:00 on 12/16/16
Sorry, Democrats, But Putin Didn't Steal The U.S. Election For Trump
Russian strong man Vladimir Putin no doubt has cyber-hacked the U.S., but almost certainly didn't influence the election in Donald Trump's favor, say White House and election officials.
The Democrats' bizarre claims of "Russian interference" in the 2016 election are looking increasingly threadbare and desperate. Yes, the Russians constantly hack our computer systems, a fact that even President Obama knows. But no, their hacking efforts had no impact on the election. None.
And that's not just us talking. The FBI says there's no evidence the Russians affected the outcome. The office of the Director of National Intelligence — which governs all 17 U.S. spy agencies — says there's no evidence. Department of Homeland Security says there's no evidence. Attorney General Loretta Lynch says there's no evidence. Heck, even President Obama admits there's no evidence that Russian hacking cost the Democrats the election.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, not exactly known for being friendly toward Trump or other Republicans, was especially adamant in his rejection of the claims.
"I think it's important to note that on election night we had our guard up for this," he said. "We had our crisis action team ready on election night. We did not see anything that amounted to altering ballot counts or degrading the ability to report election results, nothing out of the ordinary."
As for claims by the Democrats that the CIA believes that Russian election-hacking was intended to help Donald Trump, that too is not exactly correct. The CIA has issued no official report at all on these claims. They are the product of CIA insiders, whose motives and political allegiances are murky at best. This may be why the CIA and some other spy agencies have refused to brief Congress on the supposed cyber-hacking of our election.
The Democrats have for decades heaped ridicule on Republicans in general and conservatives in particular for their "paranoid" preoccupation with the old Soviet Union. Of course, being concerned about a regime that slaughtered more than 30 million of its own people doesn't seem to warrant being called "paranoid," but rather "realistic." Such a regime is in fact a danger to humanity.
But now the shoe's on the other foot, and Democrats are bleating about Vladimir Putin's resurgent Russia stealing the election through nefarious computer hacking tricks. Talk about paranoia.
The truth is, Democrats are still in the denial phase of their loss. That's why Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta's Center for American Progress is basically no longer a "think tank," if it ever was — it's now focused on finding a way to deny Donald Trump his Electoral College victory. Meanwhile, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig is offering pro bono legal aid to those who would reject Trump. And of course, there's a full-throated chorus of media types — led, inevitably we suppose, by The New York Times' Paul Krugman — who are calling the results into question, despite zero evidence for the claim.
They won't win, of course. But that's probably beside the point.
The Democrats' game seems to be this: Trump now has an estimated 306 electors to Hillary's 232. If Democrats can get 36 or so "faithless" electors to switch their votes, it won't give Hillary the election, but it will deny Trump the 270 electoral votes he needs for an outright victory in the Electoral College. Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where Trump would no doubt win — but his claim to any mandate would be diminished.
Democrats could, with some plausible justification, say Trump didn't actually win the election.
That would be the first salvo in an effort to weaken Trump and turn him into a lame duck before his first term even gets underway.
The Democrats have chosen to make a travesty of our system of elections, refusing to accept the outcome of a legal election by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our voting system. But they should be wary. If they manage to throw this election into doubt, as they did in 2000, people will get very angry. This was a change election, one in which many people who usually vote for Democrats voted for the other candidates instead.
If Democrats think disenfranchised Trump voters will thank them for interfering in the Electoral College, they're likely to be very disappointed. It might backfire spectacularly. Democratic sour grapes might soon turn to vinegar if the GOP wins a filibuster-proof Senate majority in two years.
Edited by GA Tiger at 07:55:00 on 12/16/16
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
In another vain effort to educate the ignorant, commonly - GA Tiger MU - 12/16 07:54:01