…And 3 million is a rational estimate
Let’s not bicker and argue about who hacked who
Obama complained for months about the Russians tampering with the US election to get Trump elected. Apparently for all of Trump’s lack of political experience and his apparent intention to start World War III the first time he loses his temper, he is also somehow irresistible to the Russians. It has nothing to do with Trump’s desire to sell the American uranium industry to the Russians, Hillary already did that.
For some unexplainable reason, Russia is willing to start a cyber war to install Trump. So much so that they “hacked the election”. They literally caused you to vote for Trump. The Russians worked intentionally to aide Trump. I’m not even sure if we can call this America anymore or if we are just a puppet of Russia. And of course, if Trump doesn’t denounce Russia and concede this sham election, he should be hung for treason, right?
Back to reality.
What does the media mean when they say Russia hacked the election? Russia did not tamper with voting machines. Russia did not funnel fake news to the mainstream media who then dutifully reported it. In fact, the last major example we have of that was when the CIA told the President who told the media that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. Russia did not get into your computer and use subliminal messages to make you feel like voting for Trump. None of that happened.
In fact, it’s not clear that this was a Russian national effort. Apparently the CIA has identified some Russian officials (unnamed) who might be involved. But there’s another wrinkle. The CIA might not even know what they are talking about.
The “hack” of the election wasn’t a hack of the election at all. It was a hack of the DNC servers. To be clear, no one invented the Podesta emails. No one modified them. Whoever the hackers are, whether Wikileaks who took responsibility for it or Russian officials according to the CIA, all they did was publish real, actual emails written by real, actual Democrat staffers.
According to the CIA, the hackers hit the GOP and DNC, but only released the DNC emails. The FBI disputes that, saying the GOP servers were never hacked. If the GOP servers were never breached, that eliminates the CIA argument that the Russians were trying to hurt just the DNC. In fact, the argument was flimsy to begin with. It’s possible they hacked the GOP and just didn’t find anything incriminating.
So did Trump really win simply because Russia hacked the DNC? Did people walk into the voting booth thinking to themselves “Gosh, I just can’t vote for a party that let’s their servers get hacked by the Russians”. It seems like Hillary Clinton’s loss had a little bit more to do with what was on those emails. Contained in the Podesta emails was evidence of media manipulation, CNN sending debate questions to Hillary ahead of time, racism within the party, Hillary’s health issues, and of all things proof that Team Hillary not only rigged the DNC primary, but also promoted Trump in the GOP primary because they thought they could beat him.
Just to make sure the reader caught that: Hillary Clinton and her team rigged both party’s primaries in 2016.
Problem emails didn’t just come from Wikileaks. Team Hillary also got in trouble with the emails released by the FBI from her illegal server, and the undercover video of Scott Foval and others by Project Veritas. Those two sources showed how the DNC bussed people across state lines to vote illegally, and even paid homeless people to go into Trump rallies and cause violence. One would think the CIA might be interested in that. At least one might think that had more to do with Hillary’s loss.
Calling on the Russians to hack and rig an election is nothing shockingly new. Ted Kennedy did it in 1984 to try to get rid of Reagan. But the Russians didn’t decide the US election in 2016. If they are truly involved, all they did was shed light on the treacherous, terrible, racist, and illegal things the DNC was already doing to hack the election.
Maybe we should send them a thank you card.
The GOP is pushing Grandma off a cliff again
Welcome to 2016. It’s the year that Dan Rather called on the media to be more biased and Brian Williams complained about fake news. And of course, both were praised and accorded credibility on the left for their laments. Fake news is the thing right now. It’s why Trump won, it’s how Russia infiltrated the brains of the electorate and forced them to vote for Trump, and it is defined of course as right wing sources only.
Just as there is an Alt-Left, there is left wing fake news. Usually it’s unrecognizable because it comes in the form of mainstream media publication. A great example came on December 9th when Ethan Wolff-Mann (yup) wrote an article for Yahoo! Finance about how Republicans are going to massively cut Social Security. Rather than citing what was proposed, Wolff-Mann cited Center for American Progress’s twitter account as his source.
According to Wolff-Mann, and Talking Points Memo who he also cites, the Republican proposal will drastically cut benefits for the poor and runs contrary to a bi-partisan effort to save Social Security through a payroll tax increase for those under the Obama threshold of what constitutes being “rich”.
Meanwhile, the actual bill is not quite as drastic and gloomy as the “press” reports. The Sam Johnson plan, which is actually different from the Paul Ryan plan, would increase the retirement age for younger workers and adjust how inflation is calculated for benefits. Aside from that, his proposal should be a dream for liberals.
The Johnson plan would reduce benefits for wealthy retirees. It includes means testing which is basically a tax on the wealthy. It also takes away cost of living increases for the wealthy. Johnson, who calls his proposal the start to a fact-based conversation, also calls for benefit increases for some.
No solution has been determined for Social Security yet. In the end it will likely be an adjustment in inflation, an increase to the retirement age, but it also may include private accounts which can earn far more and can’t be cut by the government. For all the fear mongering, we are far from a final solution for Social Security.
Perhaps a better headline would have been “Wolff-Mann Scares Seniors”.