USA:n presidentinvaalit 2016

[Valli]

Michigan on myös mielenkiintoinen. Siellä ei käytetä äänestyskoneita ollenkaan, joten mten niitä voidaan peukaloida?

Without a recount, all we can do for now is look for any meaningful difference in the three states named in the New York article between votes in counties that used paper ballots and votes in ones that used machines. That quickly crossed Michigan off the list: The entire state uses paper ballots, which are read by optical scanners. So we couldn't compare results by type of voting in that state. Instead, we checked the six other states with a margin between Clinton and Trump of less than 10 percentage points that use a mix of paper and machine voting: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

[Kremppamestari]

Aika outoa tuo Jill Steinin sotkeentuminen vaalitulokseen. Hänhän muistaakseni tuki Trumpia eikä uudelleenlaskennasta voi myöskään olla hänelle mitään oleellista etua.

[xor_rox]

[tweet]801861930948272128[/tweet]

[JKN93]

Kanerva meinaa että jotain kyber-selvityksiä pitää tehdä,joka olisi voinut vaikuttaa vaalitulokseen:
Kanervan mukaan manipulointi ja hakkerointi on mahdollinen.Asia on vielä epäselvä...
http://www.satakunnankansa.fi/maailma/vaalitarkkailijana-usassa-toiminut-kanerva-spekulaatiot-manipuloinnista-erityistarkkailuun-13988175/
Jonkinlainen tulos tarkistus ja uudelleenlaskenta tulossa näihin kolmeen vaa'ankieli osavaltioon tavalla tai toisella.
Aktivisti,juristi ja tutkija/asiantuntija ryhmät ajamassa asiaa viranomaistaholle.
Lisäksi Vihreiden ehdokas alkanut ajamaan asiaa Clintonin puolesta kertoo mm.IL ja Yle.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9314683
Sähköinen äänestäminen selvitykseen...
http://www.aamulehti.fi/maailma/yhdysvaltain-vaalikohu-paisuu-tulosta-ehka-peukaloitu-ulkomailta-clinton-yha-hiljaa-24087956/?

[Jaakko Sivonen]

Aika outoa tuo Jill Steinin sotkeentuminen vaalitulokseen. Hänhän muistaakseni tuki Trumpia eikä uudelleenlaskennasta voi myöskään olla hänelle mitään oleellista etua.

Eh, hän oli itse ehdolla presidentiksi samoissa vaaleissa.

[Valli]

Michiganissa äänet on laskettu.

The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704

In the closest race for president in Michigan's history, Republican Donald Trump is hanging on to a 10,704 vote win over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Michigan Secretary of State posted results Wednesday that were submitted by the state's 83 county clerks on Tuesday after the votes were reviewed and certified by each county.

Before that compiled count, Trump held a 13,107 lead over Clinton. But after each county certified its results, the lead shrunk to 10,704, with the biggest chunk coming from Wayne County, which showed that Clinton had gotten 565 more votes than originally tallied by the county.

The state's Board of Canvassers will officially certify the results on Nov. 28. The electoral college in all the states, including Michigan's 16 electors, will cast their votes on Dec. 19.

The Michigan Secretary of State posted results Wednesday that were submitted by the state's 83 county clerks on Tuesday after the votes were reviewed and certified by each county.

"Many people have asked about Michigan's process for counting ballots and certifying election results. Please be aware that all 1,521 Michigan cities and townships completed ballot counting and reported unofficial results by the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 9," according to a statement on the Secretary of State's website. "The county canvassing boards, as they do after every election, then began their work to review and certify the results from each precinct."
Across the nation, Trump won 306 electoral votes -- including Michigan's 16 -- to 232 for Clinton. In the popular vote, Clinton holds a lead of more than 2 million votes.

Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate since 1988 to win Michigan.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/donald-trump-wins-michigan-votes/94360852/

[tyhmyri]

Minua erityisesti ilahduttaa se, että Trump on perunut kaikkein typerimpiä vaaliteemojaan. Toisaalta on mielenkiintoista nähdä pitääkö hän kiinni niistä järkevistä lupauksistaan. Järkeviä lupauksia oli niitäkin melkoinen läjä.

Hauskaa on muuten se, että Trump on avoimesti todennut presidenttipestin edistävän bisneksiään.

Trump on mielestäni ollut koko ajan parhaimmillaan juuri omana itsenään eli pelurina ja diilien tekijänä. Aika roisi jätkä, mutta kun ei sitä peittele, niin mikäs siinä.

[Kremppamestari]

Aika outoa tuo Jill Steinin sotkeentuminen vaalitulokseen. Hänhän muistaakseni tuki Trumpia eikä uudelleenlaskennasta voi myöskään olla hänelle mitään oleellista etua.

Eh, hän oli itse ehdolla presidentiksi samoissa vaaleissa.

Tottakai sen tiesin, mutta hän sanoi pitävänsä Trumpia Clintonia parempana vaihtoehtona.

[gallows]

Aika outoa tuo Jill Steinin sotkeentuminen vaalitulokseen. Hänhän muistaakseni tuki Trumpia eikä uudelleenlaskennasta voi myöskään olla hänelle mitään oleellista etua.

Oikeasti, mielenkiintoinen kuvio...
Kalastelee populistisia irtopisteitä tulevaisuutta ajatellen?
Vaikea uskoa että tahtoisi clintonin pressaksi, kun puheet sillon vaalien alla oli sen mukaiset että jos hiltsu voittaa niin ydinsota alkaa.

[JKN93]

Vaalihäiriköinnistäkin tulossa sanktioita jos menee läpi,ainakin Obama aikaisemmin lupaillu vastatoimia ennen kuin valta vaihtuu...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-cardin-to-introduce-bill-on-russia-20161116-story.html

Ben Cardin to introduce bill on Russia

Cardin: 'Whether you attack us by a MiG or mouse, it's an attack and it requires a response.'

Sen. Ben Cardin, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will unveil legislation Thursday that he said will respond to Russia's alleged cyber attacks during the presidential election as well as Moscow's involvement in Syria and Ukraine.

The legislation is part of a broader, bipartisan push on Capitol Hill to offer some answer to Moscow -- possibly before President Barack Obama's term ends in January. President-elect Donald Trump extended a more conciliatory tone to Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign.

Cardin did not discuss specifics of his proposal, which he said he would lay out in a speech Thursday. Asked if the bill would call for sanctions on Russia, Cardin said only that the bill would be "comprehensive" and that it would address the country's 2014 annexation of Crimea and its airstrikes in Syria.

"Whether you attack us by a MiG or mouse, it's an attack and it requires a response," the Maryland Democrat told reporters Wednesday.

Lawmakers in both parties have sounded alarms about Trump's rhetoric with Russia, which has broken with Republican orthodoxy. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has openly sparred with Trump, called Wednesday for hearings into whether the Russian government was involved in cyber-hacks to disrupt the U.S. elections.

"He wants to reset with Russia. Maybe he can do it," Graham said. "But here's my view about Russia: They're a bad actor in the world and they need to be reined in."

Cardin drew the ire of Russian leaders by shepherding legislation through Congress in 2012 that allows Washington to impose sanctions against human rights abusers from Russia. He has since sought to expand those restrictions to countries other than Russia.

Both bills were named for named for lawyer and auditor Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian jail in 2009 seven years ago today.

[Alarik]

Aika outoa tuo Jill Steinin sotkeentuminen vaalitulokseen. Hänhän muistaakseni tuki Trumpia eikä uudelleenlaskennasta voi myöskään olla hänelle mitään oleellista etua.

Oikeasti, mielenkiintoinen kuvio...
Kalastelee populistisia irtopisteitä tulevaisuutta ajatellen?
Vaikea uskoa että tahtoisi clintonin pressaksi, kun puheet sillon vaalien alla oli sen mukaiset että jos hiltsu voittaa niin ydinsota alkaa.

Ei haluakaan vaihtaa Trumpia. Kampanjasivuillaan Jill2016 ei puhu Trumpista eikä Clintonista mitään. Vaikuttaa siis luottavan Trumpin voiton olevan selvä jo.

Sitten hänen oma agendansa ei liity yhtään Trumpin/Clintonin vaihtoon, vaan tämä 1. askel on vain väline nostaa varsinaisia "päätavoitteita" esille, jotka liittyy pienpuolueiden/-ehdokkaiden aseman nostoon vaaleissa ja sen hän sanoo suoraan (jaottelen luetellut tavoitteet alle ranskalaisilla viivoilla):

Stein noted, "Assuring the validity of our vote is a critical first step towards democratizing our elections. Other essential steps include
- ending discriminatory voter ID laws and
- voter purges (like "Interstate Crosscheck");
- opening the debates to all candidates on the ballot in enough states to win the election;
- establishing Ranked Choice Voting,
- a system that enables voters to rank their choices, knowing that if their first choice loses, their vote is automatically reassigned to their second choice;
- and getting big money out of politics
- and letting the people back in."

Aikalailla näyttää olevan Trump-tyylistä sanailua esim "big money out of politics".

[ikuturso]

Caustia pukkaa.

Trump on reilut 10 vuotta sitten kehaissut tytärtään niin kauniiksi ja fiksuksi, että voisi naida tämän jos ei olisi oma tyttärensä.
Tähän sanavalmis Ivanka on tuumannut, että yrittäisi vaan niin saisi pippurisumutteesta jollei olisi oma isi.

No ensimmäinen lause on tulkittu insestiseksi ja likaiseksi. Toinen on nyt löytynyt jonkun lehtiartikkelin kommentista, ja osoittaa yllättäen, miten Ivanka vihaa moisia insestihaaveita laukovaa isäänsä.

Kas. Minun mielestäni tuo dialogi on vilpitöntä kehua ja sanavalmiin naisen kuittailua. Tuollaista kuvittelisin esiintyvän toimivassa isä-tytär-suhteessa. Samantyyppistä retoriikkaa saattaisin itsekin käyttää.

http://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/201611252200032127_ul.shtml

-i-

[xor_rox]

Caustia pukkaa.

En halua avata Iltapaskan sivua, mutta mahtaakohan olla kysymys ihan heidän omasta caustistaan, kun tuo asia kohistiin USA:ssa jo kauan sitten.

[Lasse]

Viha- ja valeuutissivuston rahahana käännettiin kiinni

"We did a human audit of Breitbart and determined there were enough articles and headlines that cross that line, using either coded or overt language," AppNexus spokesman Joshua Zeitz told Bloomberg.

Hmm, coded language. Niinkuin cheese pizza ja walnut sauce, Comet Ping Pong -style?

[JKN93]

Nyt jotkut näyttävät jo uskovan siihen että Brexitin,Trumpin ja Euroopan nousevien "populistien" ansiosta koko globalistien "liberaali maailmanjärjestys" olisi kaadettu ja maat palaavat "kansallisvaltioiksi".Tämän hajoamisen voi kyllä vielä estää se että eliitin haluamana USA:n vaalitulos vielä tarkistuslaskennassa muuttuisi,brexit kaatuisi ja EU estäisi jotenkin populistien nousun valtaan Euroopassa.Saa nähdä miten käy...
"Obituary of the Liberal World Order"
http://katehon.com/article/pink-not-color-anymore

[Emo]

Onko Trumpin pääneuvonantaja Steve Bannon "Pimeyden voima"?

http://www.patmos.fi/blogi/kirjoitukset/927/onko_trumpin_paaneuvonantaja_steve_bannon_pimeyden_voima

... mitä Bannon lausumallaan todella tarkoitti.

Yle Uutisten artikkelin mukaan:

"Yhdysvaltain liberaaleille ja demokraateille Bannon edustaa pimeyden voimia. Hän itse vaikuttaa haastattelussa tyytyväiseltä tilanteeseen. –Pimeys on hyvästä. Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Saatana. Se on valtaa. Se vain auttaa meitä silloin, kun vastustaja on väärässä. Kun he eivät tajua, keitä me olemme ja mitä aiomme tehdä, Bannon uhoaa The Hollywood Reporterin toimittajalle."

Artikkelin mukaan Bannon sanoo myös näin:

"–En ole valkoisen ylivallan kannattaja. Olen kansallismielinen ja taloudellinen nationalisti, Bannon kertoo lehdessä...Bannonin mukaan demokraattien häviön syy on se, että he eivät tavoittaneet amerikkalaista työväenluokkaa."

Kannattaa lukea myös alkuperäinen amerikkalainen Bannonin haastatteluartikkeli: Michael Wolff, "Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots 'An Entirely New Political Movement' (Exclusive)", Hollywood Reporter, 18.11.2016. Siitä käyvät ilmi Bannonin käyttämien kielikuvien asiayhteydet vielä paremmin.
Varsinainen pointti on siinä, että demokraatit ja muut vasemmistolaiset sekä globalistinen republikaanieliitti kokevat nyt joutuneensa varsin pimeään aikaan, pimeyteen, jonka mustin aukko heidän näkökulmastaan on Bannon.

Huomionarvoista on sekin, että amerikkalaisen alkuperäisartikkelin mukaan Trumpin siirtymäajan organisaatio henkilönimityksineen ei lainkaan ole minkäänlaisessa epäjärjestyksessä eikä sekasortoisessa tilassa, kuten Suomenkin uutismediat ovat pilkallisesti jo ehtineet uutisoida. Hollywood Reporterin mukaan Trumpin tiimi toimii tehokkaasti, hallitusti ja päämäärätietoisesti.

Mistä Bannonin soveltamassa "Pimeyden voima" -kielikuvastossa on tosiasiallisen asiayhteydellisesti kyse?

Kaikki Bannonin käyttämät termit, kuten "Pimeyden voima", "Darth Vader" ja muut saatanallis-demonologisen alaan näköjään liittyvät, ovat 2000-luvun alun amerikkalaisten demokraattien ja muiden vasemmistolaisten käyttöön ottamia termejä, jotka kohdistettiin silloisiin republikaaniydinvaikuttajiin Bushin hallinnossa. Jos joku näistä termeistä tai niiden käytöstä nyt ahdistuu, kannattaa siinä tapauksessa valittaa niin sanotusti suoraan sylttytehtaalle eli amerikkalaiselle 2000-luvun alun vasemmistolle ja sen propagandanikkareille. He nämä mustat termit retoriseen käyttöön ottivat, eivät konservatiivit eikä Bannon.

Esimerkiksi varsin kuuluisaksi nousi juuri Tähtien sota -elokuvasarjasta sovellettu musta termi Darth Vader, joka on Tähtien sodan pahis yhdessä galaktista imperiumia hallinneen keisari Palpatinen kanssa. Presidentti George W. Bushin hallintoa vastustaneet demokraatit nimesivät Bushin varapresidentin Dick Cheneyn – jota pidettiin keskeisesti vastuullisena Bushin hallinnon pahoista teoista kuten Irakin sodan aloittamisesta – Darth Vaderiksi ja Bushin mustan ja saatanallisen politiikan pimeäksi ytimeksi.
Kyseessä oli siis vasemmistolaisten lanseeraama herjatermi, mutta jopa Cheney itsekin tykästyi ajan oloon tuohon termiin.

No nyt sitten Bannon retorisesti palaa näihin termeihin ...

Loput pitkästä kirjoituksesta teol.tri, dosentti Juha Ahvion blogista.

[newspeak]

Bannonin nimen lokaaminen Trumpiin liittyen oli jälleen sieltä absurdimmasta päästä. Leimaaminen rasistiksi, antisemiitiksi tai homofobiksi kertoo lähinnä, etteivät liberaalitoimittajat ole edes käyneet Breitbartin sivuilla. Sieltähän löytyy mm. Breitbart Jerusalem-osio ja onhan eräs Milo Yiannopoulos paitsi homoseksuaali myös juutalainen. Trumpistakaan ei antisemiittiä saa leivottua, sillä onhan hänen perheessään juutalaisia.

Näkyvä Trumpin liputtaminen oli riski enemmän Bannonille ja Breitbartille kuin Trumpille presidentinvaalien kyllästyttämässä ilmapiirissä.

[JKN93]

Tässä on vielä muutamia epäselvyyksiä joulukuulle ja tammikuulle.
Tarkistuslaskenta,manipulointi selvitykset,joidenkin osvaltioiden valitsijamiesten mahdollinen mielenmuutos ennen tulosten virallista varmistamista...
http://theduran.com/election-fraud-donald-trumps-win-questioned-jill-stein-green-party-raises-cash-for-recount/

[JKN93]

Noniin,kuten arvelin;eli nyt valetaan toivoa siihen että valitsijamiehet muuttavat vielä mieltään viime hetkellä joulukuussa,että Trumpin äänestäjiä saadaan Clintonin puolelle.Kampanja on alkanut...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/11/25/harvard-professor-calls-for-electoral-college-vote-for-clinton/ndmVyeeN4eAKURI5NCsyCJ/story.html

Should the electoral college go rogue? One Harvard professor thinks so

The votes may have all been cast in the presidential election, but the electoral college isn't set to vote until mid-December. And a Harvard professor is arguing that rather than vote for Donald Trump, the clear electoral vote winner, electors should instead buck tradition and tap Hillary Clinton as our nation's next president.

Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and former Democratic presidential primary candidate, offered a relatively simple (if unprecedented) reason in a column for The Washington Post Thursday: The electoral college has the power to reverse the peoples' will, and since more Americans voted for Clinton, Lessig argues that electors voting for Clinton are merely choosing not to overturn their decision.

"The question [electors] must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people's choice. There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote," Lessig writes, referring to Clinton's popular vote victory.

He acknowledges that historical precedent is very much in favor of President-elect Donald Trump: The electoral college has twice voted for the winner of the most electoral votes despite the popular vote favoring the loser.

And although Clinton won the popular vote by at least 2 million votes, Trump decisively won the electoral vote with victories in several large swing states.

But, Lessig argues both of those cases effectively violated the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Moreover, the Constitution does not require electors to vote in favor of the winner of the electoral vote.

"The Constitution says nothing about 'winner take all.' It says nothing to suggest that electors' freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule 'the people' or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values," he writes.

Lessig took to Medium Friday to defend his argument with readers and answer questions.

Lessig, who made campaign finance reform the centerpiece of his short-lived bid for the Democratic nomination, pledged to serve as president only until he could pass reform legislation.

[MW]

Jos tässä kohtaa aletaan peruuttelemaan, koko US of A:n uskottavuus on nolla. Tuskin ottavat sitä riskiä.

Vaikka piestiinhän niitä puskiakin...

[Kukko]

Make joulukuusi great again! Amazonin asiakkaat ei tosin kaikki oikein diggaile

The Amazon reviews of Donald Trump's tree ornament are the best thing you'll read today
http://bgr.com/2016/11/24/trump-ornament-amazon-reviews-red-cap/

[JKN93]

Jotain hämärää sieltä ois jo löytyny...
http://www.ess.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/art2322189

Suomalaisasiantuntija pitää USA:n vaalituloksen tarkistamista tärkeänä

Asiantuntijat kehottavat Hillary Clintonia pyytämään uudelleenlaskentaa.
Kasvava joukko amerikkalaisia tietotekniikan asiantuntijoita, juristeja ja aktivisteja kehottaa Yhdysvaltain viranomaisia tarkistamaan presidentinvaalien tuloksen ratkaisevissa vaa'ankieliosavaltioissa, kertovat useat amerikkalaiset ja brittiläiset tiedotusvälineet. Huolena on, että tuloksia olisi manipuloitu tai hakkeroitu mahdollisesti ulkomailta.

Suomalaisen tietoturva-asiantuntijan Harri Hurstin mukaan olisi ehdottoman tärkeää, että vaalitulos tarkistettaisiin uudelleenlaskennan avulla.

– Viime päivien aikana on paljastunut hyvin huolestuttavia tietoja. On löytynyt lukuisia alueita, joissa annettujen äänien määrä on mahdoton, Hursti kommentoi STT:lle sähköpostitse,

Esimerkiksi Wisconsinin osavaltiossa on Hurstin mukaan kunta, jossa presidentinvaaleissa on annettu 34 323 ääntä, senaattorin vaaleissa 34 042 ja kongressiedustajien 31 984, mutta äänestysoikeuttaan käyttäneiden määrä on vain 31 838.

– Eli ääniä on raportoitu annetun enemmän kuin äänestäjiä, mikä on mahdotonta, Hursti sanoo. Hänen mukaansa tutkimalla järjestelmiä pitäisi selvittää, miten tämänkaltaiset tulokset ovat syntyneet.

Hillary Clintonin kampanjaväkeä kehotetaan vaatimaan äänten uudelleenlaskentaa Wisconsinissa, Michiganissa ja Pennsylvaniassa, kertoi New York Magazine. Donald Trump voitti osavaltioissa. Clinton ei vielä keskiviikkoiltaan mennessä ollut kommentoinut asiaa.

Guardian-lehden mukaan löyhä tutkijoiden ja aktivistien yhteenliittymä valmistelee parhaillaan huolenaiheistaan raporttia, joka on tarkoitus jättää kongressin edustajille ja viranomaisille ensi viikon alussa.

Ryhmän mukaan Clinton näyttää kolmessa vaa'ankieliosavaltiossa menestyneen säännönmukaisesti huonommin niissä piireissä, joissa on käytetty sähköistä äänestyskonetta verrattuna niihin, joissa oli käytössä paperiset äänestysliput. Ero on ollut seitsemän prosenttia...

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

http://katehon.com/article/election-wasnt

The most important fact about the United States 2016 presidential election is that there was no election.

There was theatre, certainly. Americans must believe that they live in a democracy, and thousands of individuals directed millions of dollars making sure that, in Edward S. Herman's infamous term, the 2016 "demonstration election" fulfilled its mission.

There was, however, zero possibility of the witch Hillary Clinton winning the White House in this autumn's ritual pantomime. Had further chicanery been necessary, it would have been arranged (as was the case with the 2000 general election that saw the US Supreme Court hand the presidency to George W. Bush).

To understand why those whom founding father John Jay called "the owners of America" ordered the electoral defeat of the Neoconservative, but strongly established, Hillary Clinton, one must go all the way back to the 1970s.

In terms of physical resources and power potential, the American Empire died in 1975 when US forces fled Southeast Asia. The nation had already peaked in energy production, steel production and per capita wages. The future would only bring further decline and debt. Even as this death was dawning upon the power structures of the United States, however, the petrodollar system was expanding and invading trade, finance, and market appropriation. A group of policy advocates already known amongst themselves as the Neoconservatives recognised the potential for renewed imperialism inherent in the petrodollar system, and so pitched to America's owners another drive (financed by this "free money" machine and wielding all that had been learned about Cold War practices) toward global American hegemony.

In this they were successful.

The first gambit of the Neocons was the overthrow of the government of Afghanistan. That, and the revolution in Iran, allowed these radicals to steal the 1980 US presidential election from incumbent Jimmy Carter. President Reagan, or more accurately Vice-President George H. W. Bush, immediately ended détente and began The Second Cold War. Pressure was applied to the Soviet Union and five years later it began its tragic fall, but no actual evidence exists to suggest that the Reagan Administration's arms race, or support for rebels fighting in Afghanistan, had any real effect upon the Soviet Union. The Neocons took all credit for the disaster, however; and they were given immense political capital, in the years ensuing, by America's owners.

Brandishing the laurel of having won The Cold War, the Neoconservatives accelerated their mad, doomed-to-fail, imperial program. They goaded Iraq in 1990, struck Somalia, splintered Yugoslavia (in what was a dry run for the Russian Federation), and fostered Islamic terrorism in the Caucasus. Had the Exxon exploratory energy wells beneath and astride the Caspian Sea not been such a massive disappointment history might have been different. Darkly different. The results came back negative, however, and in a panic (having believed a "second Saudi Arabia" lay under the Caspian) the Neocons turned southwards to conquer the last remaining oil reserves on the planet. In 2001, one must recall, the Russian Federation seemed about to disintegrate.

The Neocons, now under Vice-President Dick Cheney, arranged a casus belli and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The original plan entailed a complete redrawing (via serial invasions) of the map of the Middle East, culminating in a triumphant re-conquest of the nation of Iran.

Things did not go according to plan, however.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not the quick victories that people like US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had promised. The planet crossed its production of hydrocarbons peak in 2006; economic activity, thereafter, became a zero-sum game. Consequently, the old magic no longer worked for the Empire's client states. Resistance to American hegemony grew, but the Neocons could only double-down, for to do otherwise would have initiated economic collapse.

Libya, Syria and Ukraine were the results of this final Neocon throw-of-the-dice. The first opened the world's eyes to the lie of Western Civilisation; the second will eventually result in America's greatest defeat since Vietnam; but the third, Ukraine, is what affected the American general election in 2016 the most. The Neoconservatives, who had been the steersmen of US foreign policy for nearly thirty years, were not marked for destruction because of Libya or Syria. Those catastrophes were important, but it was the Ukraine fiasco that actually did the trick.

The so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation by the neo-Nazi US proxy regime in Kiev against the oblasts of Lugansk and Donetsk was the straw that finally broke the camel's back. For the very first time in history, the Russians decided to defeat the West once and for all. They could see, in the destruction of the cities, towns and villages of the Donbass, what the Neocons intended for them. Sometime in very late 2014 or very early 2015 (perhaps even as the Debaltsevo cauldron closed upon Kiev) the fateful decision was made.

This lead to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin's mysterious eleven day disappearance (from roughly the 4th to the 15th of March, 2015). The reasons for President Putin's amazing and never officially explained absence were, by the Western mass media, guessed at in light-hearted fashion. Putin had died. He was fishing. Putin was attending the birth of his love-child. Western special services, however, neither puzzled nor were light-hearted in the least about this episode. Putin's absence could only mean one thing: he was personally supervising the nuts-and-bolts operational planning of a Russian nuclear first-strike upon the United States and Europe.

Western intelligence analysts were staggered by the knowledge, for the United States could not launch its missiles at the Russian Federation without being annihilated in return. Nor in good time could American defence industry engineering place a viable anti-ballistic missile shield between the nation and the Russian strike, which was estimated to occur in late 2018.

The Neocons had made a fatal, fatal error.

A few months later an amazing succession of events occurred. First, there took place the 2015 Victory Day Parade, which marked the 70th anniversary of the defeat (by the Soviet Union) of Nazi Germany. In this parade, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, a Tuvan Buddhist by faith, made the sign of the cross in Eastern Orthodox fashion, thus commending himself and all his fellow Russians to the hands of God in the coming war with the United States. Second, there was the sudden and prepared-in-panic visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow, where he endeavoured to convince his Russian counterparts that it was all a big misunderstanding (the United States had no designs against the Russian Federation, none at all!).

Almost a year afterwards, on March 23rd, 2016, the United States was forced to do something more substantial than simply to declare its benign intentions toward the Russian Federation and its allies. Once again, John Kerry arrived in Moscow, this time with a conspicuous briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. A flutter of jokes aired in the media as regards the contents of this briefcase, and President Putin suggested smilingly that it must be stuffed with American dollars. In fact, Kerry's briefcase contained the substance of the US surrender to the Russian Federation (in return for its calling off the Russian nuclear first strike on the US). European elites dissolved into sputtering confusion, for they knew that without their input the US had returned Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the Balkans, and Georgia to Russia's sphere of influence. The empty threats following Donald Trump's recent placement at the helm of US foreign policy echoes this consternation.

One of the concrete, specific, substantive terms of this surrender was that the Neoconservatives be destroyed as a force in American politics. This destruction could only be accomplished via a new, almost "third-party", administration in the White House. The destroyer, the former Democrat and current Republican repudiated by both establishment (and hence Neocon) political parties Donald Trump, watched calmly as the events of November 8th unfolded . . .

. . . almost as though there was zero possibility of his losing the White House.

There was zero possibility because he did not "win" the 2016 general election in the United States; Trump was placed in office by the owners of America, lest they lose all they have in a nuclear holocaust.

It is important to stress, in closing, that the rigged 2016 ersatz election in the United States may have had to take place in the manner that it did so that the Neoconservative Clinton-Bush political machine could be defeated. As unsavoury as the non-election was, a Trump presidency has at least a chance of accomplishing several things. First of all, it will end the Neocons' self-defeating drive for "full-spectrum dominance" over planet Earth. Also, for strategic imperatives it will bring industries and jobs back to the United States. Lastly, it will hopefully strengthen and restore American cultural, ideational and political structures in such a way that citizens of that nation may once again have a representative democracy.

Should this occur, general elections for the Presidency of the United States of America need never again be characterised by vile and often violent chicanery.

And this would be of benefit to all of mankind.     

[Valli]

Jotain hämärää sieltä ois jo löytyny...
http://www.ess.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/art2322189

Suomalaisasiantuntija pitää USA:n vaalituloksen tarkistamista tärkeänä

Asiantuntijat kehottavat Hillary Clintonia pyytämään uudelleenlaskentaa.
Kasvava joukko amerikkalaisia tietotekniikan asiantuntijoita, juristeja ja aktivisteja kehottaa Yhdysvaltain viranomaisia tarkistamaan presidentinvaalien tuloksen ratkaisevissa vaa'ankieliosavaltioissa, kertovat useat amerikkalaiset ja brittiläiset tiedotusvälineet. Huolena on, että tuloksia olisi manipuloitu tai hakkeroitu mahdollisesti ulkomailta.

Suomalaisen tietoturva-asiantuntijan Harri Hurstin mukaan olisi ehdottoman tärkeää, että vaalitulos tarkistettaisiin uudelleenlaskennan avulla.

– Viime päivien aikana on paljastunut hyvin huolestuttavia tietoja. On löytynyt lukuisia alueita, joissa annettujen äänien määrä on mahdoton, Hursti kommentoi STT:lle sähköpostitse,

Esimerkiksi Wisconsinin osavaltiossa on Hurstin mukaan kunta, jossa presidentinvaaleissa on annettu 34 323 ääntä, senaattorin vaaleissa 34 042 ja kongressiedustajien 31 984, mutta äänestysoikeuttaan käyttäneiden määrä on vain 31 838.

– Eli ääniä on raportoitu annetun enemmän kuin äänestäjiä, mikä on mahdotonta, Hursti sanoo. Hänen mukaansa tutkimalla järjestelmiä pitäisi selvittää, miten tämänkaltaiset tulokset ovat syntyneet.

Hillary Clintonin kampanjaväkeä kehotetaan vaatimaan äänten uudelleenlaskentaa Wisconsinissa, Michiganissa ja Pennsylvaniassa, kertoi New York Magazine. Donald Trump voitti osavaltioissa. Clinton ei vielä keskiviikkoiltaan mennessä ollut kommentoinut asiaa.

Guardian-lehden mukaan löyhä tutkijoiden ja aktivistien yhteenliittymä valmistelee parhaillaan huolenaiheistaan raporttia, joka on tarkoitus jättää kongressin edustajille ja viranomaisille ensi viikon alussa.

Ryhmän mukaan Clinton näyttää kolmessa vaa'ankieliosavaltiossa menestyneen säännönmukaisesti huonommin niissä piireissä, joissa on käytetty sähköistä äänestyskonetta verrattuna niihin, joissa oli käytössä paperiset äänestysliput. Ero on ollut seitsemän prosenttia...

Kun nyt näistä muutamasta osavaltiosta "kohistaan" niin mm. Michiganissahan ei käytetty äänestyskoneita ollenkaan vaan äänestys suoritettiin paperilipukkeilla. Miten siis voi peukaloida konetta jota ei ole edes käytetty?

Siellä taidettiin myös suorittaa jo tarkistuslaskentakin tiukan vaalituloksen vuoksi. Eli pitäisikö nyt suorittaa vaalituloksen äänten laskennan tarkistuslankennan tarkistulaskenta?

[JKN93]

Demokraatit käynnistäneet operaation Trumpin syrjäyttämiseksi:
Kertoo InfoWars;
"Breaking: Democrat Counter-Coup Against Trump in Progress"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4tTt326_-k
"Breaking! Democrats Plan To Overturn Election, Real Threat!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPNkewLnhGo

[JKN93]

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/25/46656/

More Lies From The Experts

Get Trump at all costs

Paul Craig Roberts

As flyover America has been suffering economically for many years, these Americans were immune to the oligarchy's anti-Trump propaganda. However, everyone else in the country was taken in by the propaganda—liberals, progressives, the remnant of the leftwing, and even Patrick Martin of the World Socialist Web Site who normally writes intelligent commentary.

Like Green candidate Jill Stein, Patrick Martin wants a vote recount that could be manipulated to put Hillary in the White House. Apparently, Martin is unfamiliar with Hillary and her record of war crimes. Instead of expressing relief that the agent of the military/security complex, who has threatened military action against Russia and demonizes the Russian president as "the new Hitler," was not elected, Martin unloads on Trump who has stated his goal of reduced tensions between nuclear powers. Trump's government, Martin writes, "will undoubtedly be the most reactionary, militaristic and dictatorial government in American history."

If war and dictatorship aren't enough, Daniel Altman tells us that Trump will bankrupt us as well.
We are on our way to debtors' prison, says Daniel Altman in Foreign Policy: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/15/if-anyone-can-bankrupt-the-united-states-trump-can/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=Flashpoints&wp_login_redirect=0

Altman doesn't seem to know any more about his subject than Martin knows about Hillary. Altman writes as if the tax and spending policies of Ronald Reagan and "the younger Bush" are responsible for the national debt by letting the nation "live beyond its means, stealing from legions of unborn Americans to fund their grand ideas."

As economist J.W. Mason has shown, Reagan did not increase the national debt. During the Reagan years, the growth in the national debt was due to the high interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve (in my opinion in the Establishment's attempt to wreck the Reagan program).
Mason shows that it was the Fed-imposed increase in interest rates on the debt that raised the national debt. http://theweek.com/articles/559475/everything-know-about-ronald-reagan-national-debt-wrong

In contrast, despite the Fed's accommodation of the Oligarchy's puppet, Obama, with zero interest rates, Obama holds the record for the greatest increase in US national debt. Obama added $8 trillion dollars to the national debt and holds the record: https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/25/trump-the-great-paul-craig-roberts/

Trump the Great

Paul Craig Roberts

Liberals, progressives, and the left-wing (to the extent that one still exists) are aligning with the corrupt oligarchy against president-elect Trump and the American people.

They are busy at work trying to generate hysteria over Trump's "authoritarian personality and followers." In other words, the message is: here come the fascists.

Liberals and progressives wailed and whined about "an all white male cabinet," only to be made fools by Trump's appointment of a black male and two women, one a minority and one a Trump critic.

The oligarchs are organizing their liberal progressive front groups to disrupt Trump's inauguration in an effort to continue the attempt to delegitimize Trump the way the paid Maidan protesters were used in Kiev to delegitimize the elected Ukrainian government.

To the extent any of the Trump protesters are sincere and not merely paid tools of oligarchs, such as George Soros, military and financial interests, and global capitalists, they should consider that false claims and unjustified criticism can cause Trump and his supporters to close their ears to all criticism and make it easier for neoconservatives to influence Trump by offering support.

At this point we don't know what a Trump government is going to do. If he sells out the people, he won't be reelected. If he is defeated by the oligarchy, the people will become more radical.

We do not know how Washington insiders appointed to the government will behave inside a Trump presidency. Unless they are ideologues like the neoconservatives or agents of powerful interests, insiders survive by going along with the current. If the current changes under Trump, so will the insiders.

Trump got elected because flyover America has had all it can take from the self-dealing oligarchy. The vast bullk of America has seen its economic prospects and that of children and grandchildren decline for a quarter century. The states Hillary carried are limited to the liberal enclaves and oligarchy's stomping grounds on the NE and West coasts and in Colorado and New Mexico, where effete wealthy liberals have located because of the scenary. If you look at the red/blue electoral map, geographically speaking Hillary's support is very limited.

We know that Hillary is an agent for the One Percent. The Clintons $120 million personal wealth and $1.6 billion personal foundation are proof that the Clintons are bought-and-paid-for. We know that Hillary is responsible for the destruction of Libya and of much of Syria and for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Ukraine. We know that the Clinton regime's sanctions on Iraq resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity. We know Hillary used government office for private gain. We know she violated national security laws without being held accountable. What we don't know is why groups that allegedly are liberal-progressive-leftwing are such fervent supporters of Hillary.

One possible answer is that these groups are mere fronts for vested interests and are devoid of any sincere motives.

Another possible answer is that these groups believe that the important issues are not jobs for Americans and avoiding war with nuclear powers, but transgender, homosexual and illegal alien rights.

Another possible answer is that these groups are uninformed and stupid.

What these protesters see as a threat in Trump's strong and willful personality is actually a virtue. A cipher like Obama has no more ability to stand up to the oligarchy than a disengaged George W. Bush so easily stage-managed by Dick Cheney. Nothing less than an authoritarian style and personality is a match for the well-entrenched ruling oligarchy and willful neoconservatives. If Trump were a shrinking violet, the electorate would have ignored him.

Trump did not purchase his presidency with the offer of handouts to blacks, the poor generally, teachers unions, farmers, abortion rights for women, etc. Trump was elected because he said: "Those who control the levers of power in Washington and the global special interests they partner with, don't have your good in mind. It's a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you."

It has been a long time since the electorate heard this kind of talk from someone seeking public office. Trump's words are what Americans were waiting to hear.

As willful as Trump is, he is only one person. The oligarchy are many.

As impressive as Trump's billion dollars is, the oligarchs have trillions.

Congress being in Republican hands will spare Trump partisan obstruction, but Congress remains in the hands of interest groups.

As powerful as the office of the president can be, without unity in government changes from the top don't occur, especially if the president is at odds with the military with regard to the alleged threat posed by Russia and China. Trump says he wants peace with the nuclear powers. The military/security complex needs an enemy for its budget.

It is absolutely necessary that a lid be put on tensions between nuclear powers and that economic opportunity reappears for the American people. Trump is not positioned to benefit from war and jobs offshoring. The only sensible strategy is to support him on these issues and to hold his feet to the fire.

As for the immigration issue, the Obama Justice (sic) Department has just worsened the picture with its ruling that American police departments cannot discriminate against non-citizens by only hiring citizens as officers. Now that US citizens face arrest in their own country by non-citizens, the resentment of immigrants will increase. Clearly it is nonsensical to devalue American citizenship in this way. Clearly it is sensible to put a lid on immigration until the US economy is again able to create jobs capable of sustaining an independent existence.

If Trump can defeat the oligarchy and save America, he can go down in history as Trump the Great. I think that this prospect appeals to Trump more than more wealth. Instead of trying to tear him down in advance, he should be supported. With Trump's determination and the people's support, change from the top down is possible. Otherwise, change has to come from the bottom up, and that means an awful lot of blood in the streets.

[JKN93]

Washington Postilla menossa kova kampanja vielä Clintonin saamiseksi Trumpin tilalle,
koska muuten Venäjä on kuulemma voittanut...(pitkät jutut linkeistä)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-keep-looking-away-from-the-elections-most-alarming-story/2016/11/25/83533d3e-b0e2-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.a203f38af02e
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

Valitsijamiehiä yritetään saada muuttamaan Trumpin puolelta Clintonille:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/millions-sign-petition-urging-electoral-college-to-elect-hillary-clinton-175038196.html

[JKN93]

Trump nimenny toisenkin turvallisuus neuvonantajan;Kathleen McFarland.Tiedot tuolta:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-25/trump-said-to-name-mcfarland-as-deputy-national-security-adviser

[Valli]

Taitaa olla niin että osassa osavaltioita laki määrää valitsijamiestä äänestämään vaalit voittanutta ehdokasta. Osassa taas tällaista lakia ei ole.

Tappouhkauksia satelee valitsijamiehille.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/electoral-college-voters-deluged-with-death-threats/

[Man in a Suit]

Ameriikkalaiset ovat vieneet Demokratiaa ja Vapautta maailmalle jo vuodesta 1965 (Vietnamin sota), montako maata onkaan pommitettu nuuskaksi vapauden (Öljyn) nimissä.
Nyt sitten tuo vapaa kansa käytti demokratiaansa ja sepä ei olekaan hyvä juttu?

Väärin äänestetty. Hehehehehehe.....

Ja voi sitä ulinan määrää