Mc Mike
Mc Mike's JournalOn a more constructive, analytic, non-potty mouthed note:
This repug strategy described in the o.p. matches another one they pulled this election. On the stump, dRumpf and his flunky mouthpieces kept saying, over and over again, that there was top secret info in Sec Clinton's e-mail, which she endangered by using an unsecured server to transmit and store the info with. They kept screaming and crying that she had irresponsibly risked our enemies getting ahold of all these "important national security secrets".
Then, the orange nazi made a campaign pronouncement to mass media that he wanted our most dangerous foreign enemies to hack into her e-mail server, to get the "important national security secrets and publish them openly in media". Non-repug Americans were prompted to say "the 'loyal' opposition repug party candidate is calling for an enemy foreign government to commit felony crimes against the US."
Then, the dRumpf repugs screamed triumphantly "A HA! There ARE national security secrets! We just got you to admit it! Or else why are you criticizing our tubby bald hitler for making that statement?"
It was a supremely stupid and lying attempt to reframe the issue, but they got some mileage out of it anyway, and publicly acted like they won some great victory. Nobody who's dwells in reality believed there are national security-endangering secrets on that server that could be revealed, after the umpteen repug investigations came up empty. But based on constantly screaming lie number 1 for months, they pretended that everyone had acknowledged that lie was 'true'.
Then they had their candidate tell the world "Based on the idea that the first lie I've been repeatedly bellowing is true, I invite a dangerous threatening enemy government to commit felonies and espionage, and interfere in our nation's elections electronically, so they can prove my lie is 'true' and benefit me." And when they pretended that we were upset about that blatant, broadcast treason because we 'all believed lie # 1', they were stating lie # 2.
Of course, it's a given that the repugs are going to lie all the time, over and over again, and be given free reign to do so in repug-plutocrat-owned mass media (though the public 'owns' the public airwaves, that's why the FCC exists, and the public paid for all cable t.v. connectivity. I'm unsure, but I'd guess that the public paid to launch the satellites used by satellite t.v.). It's a given that the repugs are going to scream lies at the top of their lungs, all the time, because that's all they have to run on. Reality is very unfriendly to their policy positions and "oh so deeply held" belief systems.
And of course, it's also a given that their zealous brain damaged followers will uncritically accept and believe any and every one of the lies that their leaders state to demonize their political opposition. But what they did with this one-two lie punch was catch some people on our side flat-footed, or make those people have to engage in a long winded nuance filled discussion of the overall crazy lying situation they set up.
As soon as we do nuance, we tilt the playing field in their favor, because the media wants to limit statements by political people to very quick punchy soundbites spoken with righteous aggressive apparent conviction, whether they're true or not. (But we'll get to hear our area's NFL coach explain winning or losing strategies for 2 minutes on the same newscast. Go figure.)
It wasn't easy to address the false framing that mass media let the repugs make on the issue, in a simple way. A few people tried to do so by saying "If we are to accept the premise that you believe your lie number one is 'true', then having your candidate invite a dangerous enemy to get our top secrets is a treasonous action.", while avoiding a more direct and confrontational statement like "There are no secrets, and it's treasonous to ask the Russians to get our secrets with felony hacks and publish them, even though there are no secrets to get."
They used their framing to try to put us into a no-win situation, to pretend that we were so desperate to point out and hold onto the idea that drumpf was committing treason that we therefore "had to concede" that lie # 1 "was true". They pretended it could only be treasonous to ask the Russians to hack our elections if lie # 1 was true. Lie # 2 is that we conceded that we believed their first lie. Lie # 3 is that we "hypocritically contradicted ourselves", that there could be "no dRumpf treason" without lie # 2 being true.
The simplest way of stating and framing our case would be to say "They're horribly foul and treasonous liars, and they told 3 different lies on this issue. It's easy to prove what complete liars the repugs are."
----------------------------------
In the issue this o.p. is discussing, lie # 1 is that the elections are being rigged, against dRumpf. Lie # 2 is that any Dem partisan said that the elections are un-riggable, completely on the up and up, because we said his claims the elections were rigged against him were ridiculous obvious lies. Lie # 3 comes from that fanged repuglinazi scag, that "Dems are contradicting themselves", we said the elections couldn't possibly be rigged, now we lost and are saying they were rigged. "Dems are sore losers! They're laughably ridiculous!"
This triple lie follows the exact same pattern as the "unsecure server -- invitation to russian hack -- Dems contradict themselves and got caught lying" campaign moves by the repugs.
Political observers have often stated that dRumpf and repugs constantly engage in projection. When they scream accusations about some crime their enemies are pulling against the poor repugs, they're actually talking about some crime the repugs are themselves pulling against the same "enemies" they're accusing.
The nuanced position about his projective "rigged" accusations was best stated by Prez O: that dRumpf was behind in all the polls, that the election contest hadn't even been held yet, and he was crying that he already lost. And he predicted that it was by future cheating that the theft was going to happen, with no evidence to support his charge.
Media let him make that evidence free accusation. As long as media let him say those lies without pushback, it created a "he said she said" situation, where both versions of "reality" were "equally valid", the media reported the controversy to let the American people decide.
Mass media assisted dRumpf when they asked all the candidates whether they would peacefully accept the results, since orange hitler had continually mouthed off that there would be no peaceful transition of power if his deranged violent stupid armed alt-reality-dwelling alt-right followers were unhappy with the results. Which just meant they wouldn't accept any result that didn't show they won.
No election ever saw our media asking our politicians and their backers whether they'd abide by our Constitution and Democracy if they didn't like the results, but we got to see that this election.
And it was all based on the continually, repeatedly screamed lies of "everything's rigged against poor dRumpfenfuhrer!" that the repugs got free airtime to broadcast, over and over again, in mass media. Lies that were made up and stated with zero evidence offered (or asked) to substantiate them. Simplistic lies that could be stated loudly, aggressively, with fake angry conviction, in a 30 second sound byte, without nuance.
There was never any committment given by any candidate, never any question put to any candidate, that said "If it is blatantly obvious that there were illegalities committed against you, which result you winning the election but official pronouncements being made that you lost anyway, will you knuckle under and crawl away?" The question wasn't asked that way because corporate mass media doesn't do nuance, either.
The elections always could have been (and were) rigged by repugs against the American voting public, in a million ways. A ton of Dem activists and political reporters pointed out all those different ways -- VRA dismantled, dozens of new anti-voter laws made by repugs after the repugs gutted the VRA, Citi United's unleashing of unlimited dark money spending, multitudes of disenfranchisment actions against Dem voters by repug officials in charge of elections, slanted corporate media pushing pro-repug lies, FBI public interference in the election against Dems while FBI ignored blatant chargeable offenses committed by dRumpf, obviously mis-sampled slanted polls reported as gospel by media, US intel uncovering foreign hacks into state elections databases, repugs mobilizing a bunch of wingnuts to threaten anti-dRumpf voters at polling places, tons of vulnerabilities in the unsecured repug owned electronic means of recording the ballots, ETC -- all that rigging blatantly occurred while repugs screamed ridiculous and unsubstantiated accusations of it being rigged against them, pointing the accusation at their opponents, blowing a huge smokescreen to obscure all those well documented repug rigging moves. And a billion dollars of free media coverage was given to the repug while he and his flunkies screamed constantly, on the media, about how the media was rigging it against him.
The elections were rigged. People on our side always said it looked dangerously like they were being rigged. And we never said we'd accept the results no matter how much evidence existed that they were rigged to put the orange supremacist in charge of our country.
That pretty much answers orange hitler and his fanged sidekick's 3 lies on this issue.
It varies from county to county. Allegheny always gives us a ticket stub receipt with a voter ID #.
All the votes are stored with no paper, electronically, in a secure flash card for each machine and on the Master PEB cartridge, but they can be displayed on a computer screen, post-election. That's useful if there are voters who have data points they're willing to openly offer. (I voted on machine 1 in my precinct/district, ~ 12:30 pm, voted one at a time for all Dem candidates save one, wrote in a name for my unopposed Dem state rep, and voted against the raising Judge age initiative. So there should be a vote stored, on the district/precinct Master cart for Ward 19, District 28, City of Pittsburgh, from machine 1 at 12:30 that shows those exact preferences recorded. That vote should also be stored on machine 1's flash card. If there isn't a vote for Hillary Clinton for Prez and "Gi Gi Sullivan" for PA State Rep on machine 1 at ~ 12:30, that is evidence of felony election tampering that benefitted the repug prez candidate. The machines are called DREs, Direct Recording Electronic, they're supposed to record, store, then transfer the actual ballot cast by each voter to the Master cart.)
We sign in to vote on a paper voter certificate card, kept alphabetically in a box that looks like an old library card catalogue. There's a paper district binder that has an alphabetical list of registered voters with photostat copies of the voters' signatures, which they submitted when they registered to vote for the first time, or when they moved to a new polling district and re-registered. The poll workers write every voter's name on two separate but identitical paper district check in lists, numbered in the order that they checked in to vote. The voter certificate card has a ticket connected to it that is detached, we take it to the poll worker at the machines, they take half the ticket and put it into an envelope hanging on the side of the machine we will vote on, and give us the stub. (I keep mine, some people toss theirs, or lose them, whatever.)
So there's a bunch of paperwork that could be used for verification. The signed voter certificate cards can have their signatures checked against the district register's signatures. The 2 identical district voter check in lists can be crossed referenced with the signed voter cert cards. The voter cert cards' ticket stubs in each machine's envelopes show exactly what signed-in registered voter voted on that particular machine. They're random in the envelope, not kept in any order, to respect the privacy of each voter's vote, in case the voter is afraid to say who they voted for.
IF things were kosher at my poll, there's going to be 524 signed cards, with signatures that substantially match the signatures in the district register (may be a few less, because some ballots were cast absentee, but those ballots have a signature also.) There are going to be 524 (minus absentee #) v cert card tickets divvied up into the envelopes for the 3 machines. The two identical district check in lists will show 524 (minus absentee vote number) names that match with the signed v cert cards. If any of that paperwork doesn't jine, something irregular occurred at the district/precinct level, and it's evidence of election fraud.
With no interference, I bet I could single handedly verify the vote count in my district in less than one day.
And any recount effort could include outreach to district voters listed as having voted, that verifies that they cast a ballot. I'd be more than happy to go door to door on my own time, while not engaged in official recount efforts, in the district I vote in and used to represent as Dem committeeperson, to verify with the listed (checked in) voters that they cast ballots.
In this election, my district/precinct showed both an unusually high (81%) turn out rate (10% higher than the county average) and a "preference for dRumpf" rate that was 14 - 19% higher than the two neighboring polls I worked for election protection, in the neighborhood next door, 3 miles Southeast from me. My polling place was more than a half hour later in completing the poll closing process than the 2 polls I worked, and there was not a crowd of voters visible inside the polls who had not voted yet, but had been in line at 8 pm and were therefore eligibly waiting inside the locked poll to vote. My district/precinct is a Dem stronghold that had zero dRumpf signs visible this election, though there were several (7) visible 3 precincts away from me, 1.5 miles Northwest. When I was a Dem committee person in this district in 2011, there were 486 Dems registered and 141 R s.
Looking at the district paperwork, in a recount, won't do anything about an electronic vote flip on the precinct level, it won't show if there was a hack in the county election dept's central tabulator, it won't show if there was electronic manipulation at the state level where the counties' sent their tabulated results totals to get the overall state results. But, aside from checking the voter datapoint I offered (the actual unique ballot choices I openly admit to making), in past recount efforts there was evidence of electronic irregularities exposed during the recount process.
In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), for the '04 election recount, there was evidence exposed that a bunch of extra votes had been added for li'l bush. The random audit showed that there was a long run of voters in a row for bush, then a shorter run of voters for Kerry, then another long run of voters for bush, etc. (Conyers Report, What Went Wrong In Ohio? Page 88, paperback edition.) The odds of something like that happening would be the same as flipping a coin 20 times and having it come up tails every time, then flipping it 10 more times and having it come up heads, then flipping it 25 more times and having it be tails, with the resulting totals being recorded as 45 tails, 10 heads. The statistically-nearly-impossible long runs of identical voter preferences showed a lazy and not very sneaky attempt had been made to pump up the repug candidate's vote totals in a Dem stronghold area.
It's racist to even ask if it's racist to call someone a racist. You NPR racists.
Just another "rahowahhh!" from american nazis with hurt fee fees. They're the real victims here, how dare you be intolerant of their nazi style intolerance?
Exact same playbook as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ors.
Bircher repuglicans, all.
Mackinac Center for Public Policy funded by DeVos, Kochs:
" In March 2011, as protests over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposal to effectively end public sector collective bargaining continued to grow in Wisconsin, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy issued Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for three Michigan Universities, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Michigan State University. The request targeted any emails containing: “collective bargaining,” “Wisconsin,” “Madison,” “Scott Walker” or “Maddow.” The requests target labor studies faculty at each school. [57] USA Today wrote that Mackinac's "demands for professors' e-mails about Wisconsin's public employee labor strife is causing an uproar among some who suggest the Freedom of Information Act requests aim to intimidate pro-labor dissenters and stifle academic freedom." [57]
The FOIA request was very similar to one submitted by the Republican Party of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin-Madison historian William J. Cronon during the same week, after the professor had published a blog post questioning the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Governor Walker's anti-union legislation. [58] Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote " there’s a clear chilling effect when scholars know that they may face witch hunts whenever they say things the G.O.P. doesn’t like." [59]
Like the Wisconsin GOP's request for Cronon's emails, Mackinac's request posed some concerns for university professors because the request could be an attempt to quell political opposition. [60] In a New York Times article, Director of Academic Freedom for the American Association of University Professors, Greg Scholtz, said, “We think all this will have a chilling effect on academic freedom. We’ve never seen FOIA requests used like this before.”[61] "
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy#Chilling_Academic_Freedom.3F
Funny how the fake legend his people crafted about him
is that he's a notorious micromanager, surrounds himself with the best people, then demands results from them.
He stays on them, always knows exactly what phase they're in, on the projects he's assigned to them. He's constantly looking over their shoulders, constantly calling them into his office and onto the carpet to pump them for info about the smallest details of the tasks he assigned to them, from behind his big desk.
He does this because he's the only one with the complete picture, the only one with all the info, the only one with the detailed knowledge and overview of the whole project, and all the other projects the organization has going on. He knows it all about everything, and keeps all the details in his head and at his fingertips.
And if he doesn't like the answers he's getting from them about the little middle manager subordinate flunky decisions they make on his behalf, he fires them.
That's the whole point of his shitty little reality tv show, that he's so proud of. The constant demand for high-stakes status reports exemplifies the majesty, shrewdness, intelligence, deep desire for knowledge, and supreme tactical genius that is "trump".
He's in charge, knows everything, demands status report details on every minor decision, and the underling who fails gets fired.
The buck always stops at the underlings.
It's funny, because the o.p. shows he's the typically lazy assed, proudly ignorant, do-nothing, layabout, dilettante kind of repug leader they've given us so often before. Another romney, li'l bush, ronnie raygun style leader.
Smugly stupid. Reading working and learning are for the underlings, it's his job to get adulation and be treated like an emporor, he sits in the hive like a termite queen getting fed and pampered, the most important being in the hive's existence.
Except the termite leader actually serves a function for her hive.
He's a draft dodging chicken hawk playing with our troops' lives, and the safety and future of the nation. And remember, keep in mind, when things go wrong, the buck always stops with the underlings.
Pre-hack fun, talking with ghosts on DU.
Having made a fearless self inventory of the "My Posts" section of my account, I came up with 19 ghost posts in 16 days, prior to the site crash. Links are provided as a courtesy, no need to click on them all, but they're offered as proof. A description of the anomaly associated is provided before each link.
10/23, post # 46, out of 45 total posts, there’s a post # 48
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8248368
10/24, post # 79, out of 78 replies, there’s a post 81
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1605750
10/24, post 36, out of 69 re s, there’s a post 80
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8250435
10/26, post 7, to a tossed member:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8253612
10/27, 30 out of 39, o.p. er is t.s ed, there’s a post 40
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1608975
10/27, 5th out of 5, doesn’t show up on the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8256081
10/28, 7th of 5, same op as previous link above, and also doesn’t show up on thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8256535
10/29, to tossed nazi repug
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2555295
10/31, no anomaly, I posted to someone who should almost CERTAINLY be tossed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1612514
11/2, 115 out of 114, a post #129, shows, to a post er who ghosts their own re s
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2571886
11/3, 1, to someone who ghosted their o.p.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1614822
11/2, 32 out of 76, there’s a post 82 showing, my post 32 doesn’t show in the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1614561
11/3, 57, same thread as above, doesn’t show in the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1615545
11/3, 17 out of 15, a post 16 shows, my 17 doesn’t show in the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1615564
11/3, same thread as above, should be a ghost
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8269987
11/4, 3 out of 1, in my own op
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=11838
11/4, 29 out of 32, a post 34 shows, my 29 doesn’t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8271450
11/7, 7 out of 10, doesn’t show in the thread, a post 12 shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1618699
11/7, 10 of 10, same op as above, doesn’t show in thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1618782
That’s about it. 19 ghost talk posts in 16 days. 2 don’t count, because one’s an ATA, I assume the site managers have their own reasons; and the other one’s not a ghost.
So what’s the point? Obviously, cleaning up the site is going to create anomalies. Whatever the repug yahoos did while they were attacking the site is going to cause problems with some op s and subthreads once they’re cleaned up. But every one of the 17 cases was one where I stated opposition to a repug move, and it drew the attention of someone who's now a ghost. Or someone posted something that I thought should be opposed, in order to oppose repug spin or framing. And that post er is now a ghost.
Everyone else on this site has the same 30 day “my posts” window they could look at and count up the pre-hack anomalies, just by looking at the blanks in the “Post I replied to” column. Nobody needs to spend time analyzing and compiling the links to the actual posts as proof. If they do analyze their own ghosts, they might see some of the infiltrator post-ers who seem to be connected to the site hack, though. May see what those people were saying, what way they were trying to steer or de-rail conversations to help the repugs, and what specific subjects those people felt the need to weigh in, on.
Is 17 in 16 days a high score? Do a lot of members here have me beat, in that regard? Please DU this poll
During the election, when I watched some of their pinhead violent nazis scream "Trump!",
I could see that they were screaming "Hate!" (I hate you and everyone not like me!) and "Kill!" (I'd try to kill you if I thought I could win a fight with you and not get imprisoned!)
They just use the orange nazi's name as shorthand to convey their devolved monkey like thoughts and feelings.
See how they're acting toward their 'enemies', while the White House is under their "enemies'" control? That's how we can act when they have control.
And there are a lot more of us than there are of them.
Alternatively to your 'preserving confidence' idea
In this system we live under, the President who we elect is not the top power in the land, but is instead at the top of the servant class for the actual power groups. The top power is the 8 financial groups laid out in James Stewart Martin's book All Honorable Men. They are: Mellon, Morgan, DuPont, Rockefeller, Kuhn-Loeb, the Cleveland group, the Chicago group, and the Boston group.
Those people own all the mass media outlets in the country via the media ownership consolidation laid out by FAIR and Project Censored. They own all the opinion polling companies, which are chock full of repug connections. They're the actual owners behind the repug owned and controlled electronic voting machine companies.
We won in '06, '08, '12 because the virulent repug elements in that big 8 saw the extremely high level of revulsion Americans felt towards them -- a revulsion that their fascistic and corrupt repug party servant class created -- and knew they couldn't get away with a steal. So they settled for a shave in Dem support numbers. We win when our candidates can overcome the lying propagandic messages from the media controlled by the power groups, and those groups monitor actual public opinion and see 80-90% actual public displeasure with their repug party servants and goals.
The winning candidates staff up their administrations with appointees who represent the different members of the big 8's interests, represent the coalition of certain elements within that big 8 who backed the winner. The 8 aren't monolithic, they operate against each other, and each individual one of the big 8 has factions within them that disagree internally.
Occasionally, you'll see a cabinet level shake up in a presidential admin, where someone resigns or gets forced out. Li'l bush's Treasury Sec Paul O'Neill came from Alcoa (a Mellon man), was forced out and wrote a tell-all book about li'l bush. He was replaced by John Snow from the railway industry (a Rockefeller man). That was a loss for the Mellon faction, but a few weeks after O'Neill's last day, Tom Ridge was named as first Cabinet Level Sec of Homeland Security. Ridge came from the Mellon's hometown, and had run the Mellon's home state as gov.
Huey Long ran as a Depression-era populist, since his assassination he's been slammed as a dangerous proto-fascist demagogue. But in his stump speeches he regularly named Morgan, Mellon, and Rockefeller as the main enemies of the people who's votes he was trying to get. After he was murdered, a bunch of right wing liars tried to pin the assassination on 'FDR bumping off the competition'. But one of Huey's aides, Sidney Songy, made open claims that a group from Standard Oil (Rockefeller) was actually behind Long's murder.
Thanks for your post, big m. I enjoyed reading it.
I got this vid link from bradblog, snark.
The man who invented this "middle man / back door fractional voter architecture", allegedly for reporting "weighted results", is Jeffrey Dean. He worked for the Urosevich brothers, repug party members who created and ran the massive Diebold and ES&S voting machine companies. (Diebold keeps changing its name, it became Premier, merged with vote machine giant Sequoia, and is now called Dominion. It constantly changes name to cover its tracks.)
Jeff Dean is a convicted felon, whose convictions stem from computer hacking into banks. He was an employee of Egil Bud Krogh, the convicted repug party Nixon admin Watergate felon who ran the "plumbers unit". Krogh was an Erlichman aide who employed repug operatives G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt when they were engaging in election manipulation crimes in '72.
The candidate who "won" in 2016 employed repug party Watergate criminals Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. Drumpf and Stone's buddy, bircher infowars Alex Jones, was strongly involved in the 2016 campaign.
Bradblog is unimpeachable as a source, in my estimation. So are Mark Crispin Miller, RFK Junior, FreePress.org. But when you view the fraction magic video in youtube, you'll see that on the right side of the screen where youtubes related offerings are, bircher Jones videos will pop up, featuring an alleged interview Jones did with Bev Harris.
I'm not sure if it is her in the vid, I listened but couldn't tell. If it is her, she is a bad person and on the side of the people who stole the vote, or she is not very bright in terms of current events, and is easy to fool.
The man from TN who talks about the "double" architecture seems to be good.
Can anyone give me info on how to flip my sig icon upside down?
I've wanted to do that for a loong time. Any info would be appreciated.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2011, 05:50 PMNumber of posts: 9,114
