After the disputed 2000 election, Congress established a national commission to review the voting process and make recommendations for change. The commission was co-chaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I was a member of the commission. We held four meetings, one in each region of the country. We discussed requirements for voting, mail-in voting, removing barriers to voting, and the mechanics of voting.
Everyone was keenly aware of the “hanging chads” in Florida. We discussed such questions as: How could voting be secure, how could all votes be accurately counted, how could more options be available to encourage voting?
We reviewed the evidence for different types of voting machines. I recall that the most reliable of all machines was the old-fashioned pull-the-lever machine used in New York for decades. It counted every vote, made no mistakes, and was reliable. And, it could not be hacked. However, this voting machine was considered obsolete because it was not electronic. The company that made it was phasing it out.
All the other choices, other than handwritten ballots, were electronic machines. They were reliable if everything went well but subject to malfunctions, and of course, to hacking.
All such concerns were brushed aside, and the commission recommended modernizing the voting machines to avoid hanging chads and indistinct marks on ballots. Now many states and districts use touch-screen technology.
Now we confront a danger that was not imagined in 2001: what if the Russians hack into our election machines?
How will we know that the results are real? Will Putin choose our next president?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
In Indiana we have touch screen voting machines. I’ve been concerned for quite a while about the possible outcome of an election being manipulated…not just by the Russians but also by any brilliant hacker domestically grown who wants our election to turn out a certain way.
How many years will be keep these same electronic machines? I doubt that there will be money to ever update them.
LikeLike
Local party operatives are FAR more likely to be involved in hacking elections than the Russians or any other foreign group.
Hillary supporters seem to be jumping on the anti-Russia bandwagon, eager to blame Russia as a distraction from the info in the DNC leaks, and trying to smear Trump as a Russian collaborator. Hillary and her supporters would rather cause a new cold war, or even WWIII, rather than admit that the DNC tipped the scales in favor of Hillary during the Dem primary, or debate Trump on the issues. This is dangerous.
LikeLike
Good analysis of the potential consequences of Hillary’s anti-Russian saber rattling here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-clinton-russia-comment-1e0d489e-751d-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62-20160907-story.html
LikeLike
The DNC leaks showed that some people who worked for the DNC favored Hillary in principle (since she WAS the only Democrat and not someone who just pretended to be a Democrat to run in the primary.)
The ALSO showed that there were no dirty tricks because the people who favored Hillary also had the moral compass to hold a fair primary. The same exact primary that was held 4 years ago and 8 years ago. They didn’t change the system mid-stream to benefit Hillary. They shot down any negative campaigning. If anything, the DNC leak should have made Democrats proud to know that even if people preferred one candidate, they rejected any fix.
LikeLike
NYC,
The DNC leaks showed that the DNC colluded with the media to push for Hillary and to “muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC” as early as May 26, 2015.
https://twitter.com/MatthewKick/status/743418063937220608
LikeLike
Of course the DNC favored Hillary, she is a lifetime Democrat while Bernie has been an Independent for most of his career and was only recently a Democrat. I voted for Bernie but he lost and for the most part, things were fairly done. I know I will be mocked for that statement so go ahead and mock me. Hillary has been debating Trump on the issues while Trump has been frothing at the mouth and bloviating 24/7. How does one debate a loud mouthed lying demagogue on the issues? It’s like trying to wrestle with an octopus in a sea of slimy jello.
LikeLike
Joe, you ignores my main point, that in this post “Hillary’s reset” era, it is dangerous to use Russia as a political cudgel against Trump.
To the points you raised:
The DNC charter says the DNC and the DNC chair will hold fair primary elections. Thank you for admitting that the DNC favored Hillary, but that was done in clear violation of DNC rules. If primaries aren’t fair, then what is the point of even holding them? Next time the DNC should just publicly anoint a candidate, as it privately did Hillary, and save everyone a lot of bother.
Hillary has not been sticking to the issues. Her team coordinated with reporters to make Alicia Machado the dominant theme of the post-debate news cycle, and has also been floating the idea that Trump will not show up at the next debate.
If Trump is such a vile monster, why did Hillary and Bill spend so much time with him socially, and why did they accept his donations to her senate campaign and to the Clinton Foundation?
LikeLike
To concerned citizen, who writes: “If Trump is such a vile monster, why did Hillary and Bill spend so much time with him socially, and why did they accept his donations to her senate campaign and to the Clinton Foundation?”
Because they are also politicians.
LikeLike
Dear concerned citizen,
There was no violation of DNC rules. People that work there are allowed to like a candidate better. They are not allowed to do anything to promote that candidate over another and they did not.
You sound like a Russian hack yourself. Are you really going to post here that Trump isn’t so bad when he has constantly called our US President an alien and claimed he had absolute proof that he was lying about being a US citizen?
Are you really going to post here that Trump isn’t so bad when he appeals to racists and xenophobes and everything that is the worst of human nature? Everything that is UN American?
LikeLike
NYC,
The documents in the DNC Leak clearly demonstrate that the DNC had an explicit strategy starting very early in the primary to push Hillary in the media and “muddy the waters” about her vulnerabilities to attack, which they listed as “ethics, transparency, and campaign finance.” If you don’t know that, you haven’t read the documents. I posted an example above, there are others.
By accusing me of “sounding like a Russian hack” myself you prove my point that Hillary supporters are using unfounded accusations of Russian collusion as a neo McCarthyite distraction. So, thanks for that.
I never said Trump isn’t so terrible. Trump is terrible, but Hillary is also terrible, for different reasons. NeoMcCarthyism is also terrible.
LikeLike
To “concerned”: We cannot wonder about Trump’s connections with Russia without being referred to as a “neo-McCarthyite”? For instance, we should not question the Trump-Russia relationship when we find that Paul Manaport, Trump’s earlier campaign manager (now “fired,”), has long-term connections with Russian leaders? I think it’s obtuse NOT to question our political leaders about such factual revelations. When people throw out extreme labels like new-McCarthyite, the new question becomes, is such obtuseness deliberate?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-advisers-russia-ties_us_57acd474e4b007c36e4db94c
LikeLike
Once again, concerned, you beat me to the punch. Well said. Russia is a distraction that Hillary is playing to the hilt. You’d think this was 1956 rather than 2016.
LikeLike
Thanks Dienne, I have noticed that we are often on the same page!
I couldn’t agree more that team Clinton’s posture towards Russia is reminiscent of 1956. Hillary, her political operatives, and her allies in the media have essentially formed an Un-American Activities Committee to go on a red-baiting witch hunt. It is convenient for this election, but there could be terrible consequences for future US/Russian relations.
LikeLike
So criticizing Putin or Russia is forbidden? How interesting.
LikeLike
Joe, the problem isn’t criticizing Russia. The problem is using unfounded innuendo regarding Russian ties as a smear tactic against Trump, Sanders, Jill Stein, and others.
LikeLike
Concerned – thanks for that link. From that article, this needs to be highlighted, bolded and flown from an airplane:
“There are so many levels of irony to the Democrats’ reliance on this ugly tactic. To begin with, one presidential candidate who actually has significant, questionable ties to Russia is named . . . Hillary Clinton.
As The New York Times detailed in 2015, Hillary and her husband Bill were at the center of a deal that “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Those responsible for engineering that deal gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which “were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” Hillary herself approved the deal as Secretary of State, while Bill personally “received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.””
LikeLike
Dienne
I may have been the first one here to point out that Trumps position on Russia may be more sane than Hillary’s. Expanding NATO to the Russian border has been rejected by all Russian leaders Gorbachev,Yeltsin, Putin. I pointed to articles from Stephen Cohen as well as Kissinger saying as much. Starting a new cold war with Russia as the neo cons of both parties and the military industrial complex would like to do is M.A.D.
That said the more important issue is : Trump is unacceptable to Public Schools. He is unacceptable to the working class. He is unacceptable to people of color. He is unacceptable to American Democracy . He is unfit for the job. And finally when he is in office his policy on everything from trade to Russia will mirror the Neo Liberals and the neo cons around him . Clinton / Obama will look like progressives , which the were not.
So talking about the people around him what a despicable cast of dirt bags. Starting with Steve Bannon a racist pig . We have Rudy Giuliani who never met a police excess he didn’t like from broom handles up the rectum of black victims of police brutality. To starting a police riot on the steps of city hall against the sitting mayor who he was running against. Then a million men and boys of color were thrown up against the wall for being of color. The practice was stopped and crime continues to fall.
You have experienced his VP no need to even go there.
Then there is that “fat pig ” Christie who shut down the GW Bridge. A major interstate one of the most crowded in the nation to get even with the mayor . He also likes to talk about punching people in the nose. Did I forget Lepage in Maine What a collection of thugs.
In comparing the damage that Hillary vs Trump would do to the Nation, to the most helpless, to the middle class . Hillary is a pick pocket, Trump an ax murderer. 35 years after Reagan and we are still paying the price. . Trump will set organized labor back a century. The militarized police state will crush decent with impunity. The next Kent State under a Trump will see the guardsmen receiving medals.
LikeLike
Love not having the edit button dissent
LikeLike
“Hillary is a pick pocket, Trump an ax murderer.”
And this is where we disagree. I think Trump is a massive coronary. Hillary is colon cancer.
LikeLike
They are doing wonders with colon cancer these days. Especially when you catch it early like the day after the election. Massive coronaries are usually sudden death.
LikeLike
To “concerned citizen”: Putin is such a nice man, Russia has never shot down a passenger airline, or hacked the US, and certainly has no designs on the Unites States and its electoral process. Right. Let’s see Trump’s tax returns and who he is already beholden to.
But if you are really “concerned” about education in the United States, or anything else that concerns the public interest of the citizenry here, you won’t want to return to Trump’s “status quo,” that is, to the 50’s where misogyny and racism were the rule, and where the actual minimum wage didn’t differ much from now. “Make America Great Again.” is really code for “Return to Racism” and a new kind of more-inclusive Jim Crow. Why do you think David Duke can’t wait? And Trump screams “Law and Order” while, at the same time, dismissing, in cavalier fashion, a judge’s ruling about the unconstitutionality (the law) of stop-and-frisk. And he’s a RA-RA for privatization of schools.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the minimum wage, equalize pay for women, and address racism’s deeper and long-term causes. Public education? At least there’s hope there, as with Elizabeth Warren. And I think the bandwagon you speak of has some evidence behind it. Remember evidence?
LikeLike
Feel free to link to any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or that Russia is attempting to hack the November election.
Barring such evidence, it is reckless for Hillary and her supporters to gin up anti-Russia fervor as a campaign tactic against Trump. Full stop.
LikeLike
To “concerned citizen who says: “Feel free to link to any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or that Russia is attempting to hack the November election. Barring such evidence, it is reckless for Hillary and her supporters to gin up anti-Russia fervor as a campaign tactic against Trump. Full stop.
Rest assured, in the light of the real-politic of the past, it would be reckless, not to mention obtuse and even stupid, NOT to raise serious questions about Russia’s intentions and to chase down the source of the hacking that we do know about. The election is soon–not too good to close the door after the cows are out of the barn, so to speak,
I guess we should ignore Trump’s apparent ignorance of history and his chumminess with Putin, coupled with his business entanglements with Russian oligarchs and, again, his missing tax documents? In his speech yesterday (Tuesday) Trump says we are all going to see a new kind of government. Indeed.
Our overriding question here, however, is: What happens to public education with either candidate? Trump admires Putin for his singular power. Need I say more?
LikeLike
Catherine,
You taunted me saying, “Remember evidence?”
I invited you to link to evidence.
You replied with no evidence, just a charge that Trump is “chummy” with Putin, and concerns about Trump’s tax returns. If you want to go down that road, what about the Clintons and their ties to Russia’s Uranium One? What about releasing the secret transcripts of the paid speeches that Hillary gave before Wall Street and other business interests?
Uranium One:
Hillary’s paid speeches:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests
On the American political tradition of red baiting:
LikeLike
Hello “concerned citizen.” In science, we’ve learned to expect that, when we strike a match, we usually get fire, and not an elephant.The question of Russian complicity is rightly-raised, and I’ll be the first to say so if we find that the concrete evidence is not already here or, in all its ugly detail, forthcoming. In such a context as this, that the question of complicity might support the democratic ticket is an afterthought in the light of the build-up to it.
But you are right: a raising a question is not having an answer. On the other hand, I take Trump’s concrete and self-admitted actions with regard to Putin and Russia, as well as his absent tax returns, as concrete evidence to reasonably raise such questions. I also take as evidence: Trump’s comportment (need I say Playboy philosophy and self-serving socio-pathetic “temperament”) as is concretely displayed over and over again.
I need not read a text or merely BELIEVE anyone, nor do you, in the light of that ongoing display of hate, vindictiveness, and ignorance, both yesterday and in the last year(s), including Trump’s open admiration of Putin, as plenty of concrete evidence that he is anti-democratic and dangerous to anything so named democratic. It’s gotten to where if Trump were NOT so complicit, it would go against the grain of the concrete evidence that we DO have and that, presently, is available all day. (Trump doesn’t even know the difference between doing business “deals” and the history and movements of geopolitical relations–I need to read no article to understand that from my own observations.)
But let’s ignore our own intelligent questions and wait till after the election when public education, not to mention democracy as such, gets “hacked”–because, by ignoring the evidence we presently DO have, we refuse to to see by its inference what’s coming, to be exact, by way of understanding such a personality and the ongoing implications of its manifestation. Again, in science, we’ve learned to expect that, when we strike a match, we usually get fire and not an elephant.
LikeLike
“The question of Russian complicity is rightly-raised, and I’ll be the first to say so if we find that the concrete evidence is not already here or, in all its ugly detail, forthcoming.”
What kind of double-speak is that?
In this discussion, I am the first to say that the concrete evidence is not already here, and may not be forthcoming. In fact that is the basis of our disagreement.
All due respect to you, as I think we both want the best outcome for our public schools, and for our country as a whole. But I just cannot be convinced that neoMcCarthyism is a good thing without actual evidence. To you Russian complicity may seem as obvious as a match strike, it is not so obvious to me.
LikeLike
One persons distraction is another’s valid concern. It isn’t Russia that is the problem, it is their leaders from the KGB era with a cold war mindset. I see Hillary as at least sane and viewing Putin as an adversary. An approach that is prudent and smart. Trump does not have the intelligence to match Putin and would be played by the Russian leader like a tuba. And Trump’s unstable temperament and ability to think beyond the moment was on full display last night.
LikeLike
Speaking of a Cold War mindset: what would your reaction be if Mexico and Canada had joined the Warsaw Pact and Russian & Warsaw Pact troops armed with tactical nuclear weapons began maneuvers in Mexico and Canada close to the U.S. border, with an important Russian politician calling President Obama “the new Hitler”?
Since the end of the USSR, many of the former Soviet states bordering Russia have joined NATO, and joint U.S./NATO military forces have staged maneuvers including tactical nuclear weapons close to Russia’s borders. The U.S. backed the February, 2014 coup in Ukraine which deposed a Russia-friendly elected government and replaced it with a U.S.-dependent government whose military includes Russia-hating neo-Nazis. Hillary Clinton called Putin “the new Hitler”.
How many more provocations will the U.S. and NATO dare against Russia before this new Cold War escalates into a world war that would threaten our existence? Neoconservatives in the Pentagon and advising both Obama & Hillary foolishly think the U.S. and NATO can cower Russia into submission, and, in a war, defeat Russia with most casualties confined to Europe.
Trump is an ignorant idiot clearly unqualified to be dog catcher, let alone president, but Hillary is a neocon war lover (Iraq, Libya) who will endanger all of us. This is why I am voting for Jill Stein and fear both Trump and Hillary.
LikeLike
Thank you, Joe, for pointing out that, whatever we might think about Putin’s domestic political behavior, on the geo-political stage his and Russia’s actions are fundamentally defensive.
Elaborating on your analogy, we should additionally consider what the response here in the US would be if those Warsaw Pact troops in Mexico were also the direct descendants people who collaborated in the murder of many millions of our countrymen, and who conducted a guerilla war after their armies had been defeated, which is the case with the Bandera-ites who hold disproportionate power in the Ukrainian government, along with IMF technocrats and garden-variety looters.
What would people here think if those leaders of the fascist coup next door had also banned the speaking and teaching of English in the parts of Mexico they control, as the neo-nazis in Ukraine banned the use Russian in Crimea and the Donbass after taking power, despite the fact that those regions are overwhelmingly majority Russian- speaking?
Americans should keep in mind that Russia has a thousand-year history of being invaded, often via Ukraine, and that from 1941 until 1945 over twenty million Russians were killed in the course of the Nazi invasion. That sort of thing sticks in your mind, and tends to make you resolute in defending your territory and interests, which is precisely what Putin is doing. If anything, he is showing far more restraint than the US in this arena.
President George H. W. Bush promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the US would not expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep if the Red Army withdrew back within the borders of the Soviet Union, a promise that Bill Clinton immediately reneged upon when he was elected President.
The US is understood to have geo-political interests, and is granted huge leeway in maintaining them by its populace. By what logic is Russia not allowed to do the same in regions that are of primary historical, cultural and strategic importance to them?
LikeLike
There are no prima-donas here, for sure. Radio Free Europe and US “interventions” included the use of rock music and novels with political themes to make inroads into post-WWII Russia. What makes “it” okay, is not because it’s us or them or anyone, but because of what intentions and outcomes are involved. Freedom and justice are not cliche’s to people like Solzhenitsyn. But when what Ike called the military industrial complex, and the self-serving oligarchs of the world, are involved, everything, even the US’s intentions and outcomes under the mantle of those ideas, become alloyed if not completely poisoned. And, not the least of “it” is that we still have the freedom to talk about “it” and to enter the voting booth with impunity–unlike in Russia.
None of what happened in 1973, for instance, means much in the voting booth next month, however. What is important is the difference between the visions of the two distinct candidates and, in this context, what will happen to public education and its context in however-battered and misused democratic institutions. If you heard Bernie Sanders’ and Clinton’s speeches a little while ago (Sept. 28/2016), the choice should be crystal clear to us all.
LikeLike
Lets forget about Russia , every point is valid to some degree. American foreign policy is not about good guys and bad guys . As Truman once said about being our SOB. The bottom line is for a many reasons Trump is unacceptable. That does not make Clinton a good choice, just the only electable alternative.
LikeLike
Journalist Filmmaker Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com for more) has been been following this beat for a long time, since 2002’s “The Best Democracy that Money Can Buy”, which is now made into a film. If a state employs the Crosscheck system, election and party officials can hack the election by denying people the right to vote, often times black and latino voters. He dubs it “Lynching by Laptop”, which is a strong way of putting it. But what is important is that we are raised with the belief that our vote is equal with everyone elses, but that is if you CAN vote. Voting rights are structurally inequal, both by race and by class. It is by design, to give as much resemblance of democracy as possible, but also to help protect the status quo, business, oligarchy.
LikeLike
“Local party operatives are FAR more likely to be involved in hacking elections than the Russians or any other foreign group.”
How on earth do you come to this conclusion? The Russians, (and the Chinese) have resources far outstripping anything that is found with local part operatives, they have a long and well documented history of hacking into private and public systems in the US, and they are beyond the reach of any legal consequence.
Anyone domestic who tried to hack an election and was caught would face stiff jail time, and recruiting people with the expertise to do it would be a far greater challenge since anyone you tried to recruit could potentially turn you in.
Let’s face it, Trump is at a minimum an unwitting agent of Russia. In the last two months he has had a foreign policy advisor, and his campaign chair resign over potentially illegal activity based on their ties with Russia.
If I were a betting man, I would put down money that Trump won’t reveal his taxes because they would show him in so deep with Russian oligarchs that he would be ruined financially if they withdrew their credit.
LikeLike
This film shows how poorly run elections are on the local level. It would be hard for foreign agents to infiltrate and manipulate such a diffuse and disorganized system. State and local officials, party officials, and poll workers have much more access and ability to manipulate elections.
LikeLike
Chinese, North Koreans, ……., whatever!
LikeLike
I know it’s not considered polite to answer a question with a question but:
Why not ask Michael Connell?
LikeLike
It’s actually EXTREMELY unlikely that Putin’s team could hack a national election, because there is no national election. There are 50 separate state elections with no central database. Each would need to be hacked separately. Within each state system, the infrastructure varies–in some cases, there would need to be county-by-county or even district-by-district hacks. So as much as I disagree with Concerned Citizen about which party is likely to be involved (in Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry, there was considerable evidence of tampering by GOP secretaries of state in Florida and Ohio), I’d agree that any tampering is vastly more likely to occur–if at all–on a local level. See http://time.com/4500216/election-voting-machines-hackers-security/
LikeLike
You don’t need to hack 50 separate elections, because although each state holds its own vote, the election is decided in about three or four. You would only need to hack Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to change the result.
LikeLike
I thought the Iraqi, purple, stained finger worked the best. Unhackable, except with a hatchet!
LikeLike
It’s more than a little ironic that a country which has a long and often-disgraceful history of interfering with the internal politics of other nations, as well as spying (as claimed by Edward Snowden, and never adequately refuted) on the cell phone conversations of allied leaders – Angela Merkel and Dilma Rouseff, among others – is feigning such outrage about still unproven allegations that Putin is interfering with this election.
I guess we always need an enemy to rile up the masses, and will fabricate one when necessary.
LikeLike
Listening-in and interference are two quite different aspects of “hacking.” Did Snowden unearth evidence of the US’s interference? And does complexity and state-by-state voting, with no overall technology to hack into, secure that voting from hack-interference where “interference” means control and direction? Do you think because it’s more complex, that hackers won’t take it on?
BTW, In Russia or in any totalitarian regime, the “leader” doesn’t need to hack. They just use fear and various methods associated with gulags–so much easier.
LikeLike
Just because the DNC tried to deflect its back door support of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries by blaming Putin, doesn’t make it so.
Please provide some documentary evidence that Russia was behind those hacks, and if it was, how that differs from the US’ long history of interfering with and staging coups in other countries.
Or is it OK when we do it?
Finally, after Dilma was deposed in Brazil, the US ambassador to Brazil immediately had a very friendly and supportive meeting with Michel Temer, the kleptocrat who replaced her, strongly suggesting US support for, if not involvement in, that legalized coup. Given the long history of US involvement in South American coups, including the 1964 military coup in Brazil and its aftermath, it’s the height of naïveté to suggest that our State Department and the CIA were not involved in the current one.
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo says: “Please provide some documentary evidence that Russia was behind those hacks, and if it was, how that differs from the US’ long history of interfering with and staging coups in other countries. . . . . Or is it OK when we do it?”
First, as suggested earlier, we have plenty of evidence to raise reasonable questions about hacking. Let’s see on that. I am talking about a movement from having NO evidence, having enough evidence to raise questions on a specific issue; and having reasonable evidence for making a claim. Stupidity means ignoring the interim of rightly raising questions in lieu of an ideology.
Second, it’s not okay when ANYONE does it, except when (simply put) Constitutional values are at stake. Then it’s okay. I’ll take a stand on that one.
LikeLike
Michael, I think you are agreeing with The Donald. Why blame Russia when it might have been a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed? Also, Donald’s 10-year-old son Baron is a computer whiz.
LikeLike
Also, what are we going to do about “cyber”?
LikeLike
“Did Snowden unearth evidence of the US’s interference?”
Do the names Arbenz, Mosaddegh or Allende mean anything to you?
I happened to be living in Peru on 9/11-1973 that is, when the Chilean military led by General Pinochet with major help from the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende (you may have heard about his daughter, the writer, Isabel Allende who was tortured by Pinochet’s government). At the time all the major Latin American newspapers had headlines screaming “CIA involved in Coup” (they had seen that picture before). The US government, of course, denied such involvement until around 95-6 when the US government admitted the CIA’s involvement.
US’s interference in other countries’ internal affairs? Ask Marine Major General Butler about that. His 1935 thoughts about that involvement can be found here:
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
LikeLike
Duane,
Are you arguing that it’s okay for Russia to hack into our voting machines because we interfered in Latin zamerican countries decades ago? Your cynicism is beyond my understanding.
LikeLike
I have not said that at all, Diane. I’m not sure how you came up with that conclusion. I was just trying to respond to Catherine’s question to show how the US has been far too involved in other country’s politics since the late 1800s (hence the reference to Butler), and that is continuing even today.
I never even came close to saying what you are suggesting. My supposed cynicism is grounded in historical facts so maybe it isn’t cynicism (although I take that as a complement) but understanding history. By the way, if I may give one of my favorite author’s definition of a cynic in his “Devil’s Dictionary”. Brother Ambrose states:
“CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision.”
For more see: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/bierce/bierce.html#C
I’ll proudly claim the mantle of “blackguard”.
LikeLike
Just think about how much of our lives center around computers. I saw on the news a while back that the military is teaching how to use traditional navigational instruments in case of a computer hack or other outage of computer power. A solar flare could knock out much of our computer and electrical systems. Sure, I’ve been called “Debbie Downer” for saying this , but what will happen when we can’t access our bank accounts and other information online???
LikeLike
Not only that, but what if some evil amoral hacker (domestically or internationally) hacks into our nuclear missiles and starts WWIII just for giggles.
LikeLike
To answer your question: The banksters will take all the monies in the accounts to make sure it is “safe”. Oops, I mean “in their safes”.
LikeLike
Need to look alot closer to home with regard to vote tampering.
A 2003 book, authored by Bev Harris and David Allen titled, BLACK BOX VOTING, BALLOT TAMPERING IN THE 21ST CENTURY , is well worth the purchase price. A chilling look into technology that existed then and now that can control voting machines.
Technology advances made in the intervening 13 years , should erase any doubt that TAMPERING is not only possible but probable by domestic and global entities.
LikeLike
YEP!
Ask Michael Connell about that tampering by the GOP back then.
Oh? What? He conveniently died in a small plane crash right after he was subpoened to testify on that tampering. Never mind!
LikeLike
What a Pandora’s box was opened with the HAVA. It boggles my mind that there was so much technology worship on the commission that the lever voting machine was considered obsolete. Did no one have doubts about the wisdom of this – was it a case of groupthink (go along to get along)?
What is the opposite of Luddite?
There was one time that I lost my vote in error at a lever machine – no, I didn’t pull the big lever back. But that might be called a freak accident.
It’s the law – all votes must be hackable.
LikeLike
The rush to do everything on high tech devices linked to the internet, where hacking is always a threat, is no different than Citizens United.
Both open doors for a few wealthy, powerful extremists like the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Donald Trumps of the world, the Walmart Walton family, America’s enemies outside of the U.S. — Putin of Russia, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, ISIS, (all three have endorsed Trump) — etc. to manipulate our system without most of the people knowing what’s going on.
To protect the U.S. Republic, to protect is participatory democracy, to protect the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there must be limits put on campaign finance contributions and how we vote, so the system cannot be easily subverted by the few who have no respect for anyone else because they are psychopaths and narcissists that think like Donald Trump does.
LikeLike
“(all three have endorsed Trump)
Who cares?
I certainly don’t as they have nothing to do with our elections.
LikeLike
Everyone should care when it comes to voting for someone in this election who is being supported by enemies of the U.S. that want to destroy us. Trump has a history of statements that show he admires dictators. Every voter should be made aware of this because it is part of the election.
LikeLike
I agree that all should be as well informed on each candidate as possible. What that information has to say to each person and how each person utilizes that info is what is interesting.
LikeLike
The problem is that choice, real choice, means there are people who don’t want to make any effort to learn. They form opinions based on emotion and bias and this stick with them no matter what even if in the end what they think and decide destroys them and eveyone else.
LikeLike
And what you state Lloyd is a fundamental dilemma of a democratic system of governance. Who was it that said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Yes, it was Churchill.
LikeLike
But the U.S. is not a pure democracy. Only elements of the Republic allow eligible voters to be involved and even that is limited. Most of the power rests in the hands of those who were elected to Both Houses of Congress, were appointed to the U.S. Supreme court and were appointed or elected to the highest court in each state.
That was how the Founding Fathers set it up with some participation and a lot of checks and balances to make sure it wasn’t easy for any mob, large or small, or any individual no matter how wealthy, powerful and popular to take over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another worry: Who is securing our voter registration records? We should have safeguards in place to prevent purges of voter registration or muddling of records. As we saw what happened in the NYC primaries, that can also have a significant effect on outcome, when people are denied a ballot because they allegedly aren’t registered.
LikeLike
God, will I be glad in a month and a half when this crapshoot (emphasis on crap) of an election is over and Queen Hillary will be crowned the first female president of the US. At least that will get that out of the way.
Then we can get back to what this site is supposed to be about “discussing better education for all”.
LikeLike
To use your own phrase, Duane, TAGO. Absolutely amen to your last sentence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Señor Swacker:
I still wonder the real meaning of “better education for all”
IMHO, the real and ultimate GOAL to educate and cultivate all young minds is that
1) Educators must unite and relentlessly fight for the transparent, age-appropriate learning level, and validated CURRICULUM.
2) Educators must fight for tenure, irrevocable teaching licence and fully protected teaching professionalism regarding speaking humanity on behalf of students.
This will yield a confidence of equality in parents and students about the validated, age-appropriate CURRICULUM ACROSS 50 STATES regardless the choice in different teaching materials from different educators.
In short, would that be a “better education for all?” May
LikeLike
“Concerned” says: “To you Russian complicity may seem as obvious as a match strike, it is not so obvious to me.”
In the light of present KNOWN Trump-Russia relations, it’s obvious we should raise this question of him. We’ll see on that one. It’s equally shallow to project such McCarthyite thinkiing on those who support Clinton.
But what has become obvious to me is Trump’s inability to understand the difference between making “trade deals” with dictator states, on the one hand,, and trading democratic principles from those that are foundational to totalitarian states, on the other.
We can criticize either camp on trade deals–as your Democracy Now video shows. Trade is notorious and right in keeping everyone’s skin in the game, so to speak, and can even help avert nuclear disasters. The great different is that, before now, both democratic and republican presidents clearly knew the difference between (a) “doing trade” and (b) our trading partners’ long-term geopolitical intentions.
It’s “obvious to me”: that both Obama and Clinton understand that difference. Whereas Trump “smears” that distinction on the side of doing his “deals” for personal and family benefit. He reminds me of the Alec Guiness character in Bridge on the River Kwai, who couldn’t see the “bigger picture” and, thus, himself and all his “smartness,” as in fact working for the enemy.
LikeLike
There is a basic fallacy that both you and Diane are engaging in here: that by not automatically accepting the (still unproven by you or anyone else) accusations of Russian interference in the election, one is therefore agreeing with/ supporting Trump. That is a transparently false claim, and I am frankly shocked that Diane would make it
Aggressive efforts to undermine Russia have been underway since long before Trump announced his candidacy. I couldn’t care less about what he thinks of Putin or Russia; my concern is the ease with which otherwise intelligent, reality-based, evidence-seeking people have been convinced to jump on this new Cold War bandwagon, one that continues to be pushed forward by Hillary.
I have nothing but distaste for Trump, but the fact is that, painful is it might be to hear, he is right when he says we should find a way to work with Russia.
For those who say it would be a disgrace to support or deal in any way with such an autocratic regime, I have two words for you: Saudi Arabia.
LikeLike
FBI Said to Have High Confidence Russia Hacked Democrats
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-11/fbi-said-to-have-high-confidence-russia-behind-democratic-hacks
How hackers are caught out by law enforcers
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17302656
LikeLike
Michael: It’s not a fallacy to raise a set of intelligent questions based on the forthcoming evidence (which I have explained in my earlier posts). I won’t repeat my last post here, but I do hope you will reread it with that in mind. WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT TRUMPS “DEALINGS” TO RAISE SUCH QUESTIONS. And it’s obvious to me that Trump doesn’t know (or care about?) the distinction between business deals and relationships, and the political foundations and intentions of one’s business partners–BIG DIFFERENCE,especially for presidents of democracies. Do you really not understand the difference between jumping to conclusions and raising relevant questions?
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo says: “I have nothing but distaste for Trump, but the fact is that, painful is it might be to hear, he is right when he says we should find a way to work with Russia.”
An earlier post recounts (as a kind of accusation) that the Obama administration and Clinton WERE already working with Russia in one way or another. So we can assume that they HAVE found way to do so. My point is that are both Obama and Clinton are well aware of the distinction between Russia’s business interests and their anti-democratic, totalitarian political foundations and interests and, thus, when those foundations come into play in our “dealings.” From what I understand from watching Trump for at least a year, is that he admires dictators and doesn’t know-about or think-significant the above HUGE distinction.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Oliver Stone. ““I’m still angry”: Oliver Stone slams “superficial election,” media “idiots,” Orwellian U.S. politics”
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/22/im-still-angry-oliver-stone-slams-superficial-election-media-idiots-orwellian-u-s-politics/
LikeLike
Wow, I have to say that jumping on the bandwagon of demonizing Russia is extremely dangerous and appears to me to be simply a parroting back the massive propaganda put out by the the Clinton campaign (among other establishment parties and corporate media). It is meant to distract the public from the lies and misdeeds they are themselves are engaged in. For Clinton to blame Russia after she and her cronies got caught red-handed stealing the Democratic primary election from Sanders was outrageous! Even if it was true (which is extremely debatable and has been debunked already) how does that get Clinton and the other criminals off the hook for what has been exposed about their illegal activities!?!?
The Democrats and Republicans are EQUALLY responsible for the corrupt electoral system we find ourselves saddled with. Corruption benefits both parties and keeps them in power. Neither party has done ANYTHING to deal with this electronic voting crisis that has been building for years. However, The Green Party and other groups have been fighting for election reform and fighting against these machines that are highly hackable – NOT BY THE RUSSIANS, BUT BY the 100% who own the machines!!!
If you want real information about why you should worry about the electronic voting machines, you should see this report with Harvey Wasserman from DemocracyNow! (see link below). But simply spreading fear and falling in line with Clinton’s propaganda to start hating Russia is NOT productive, fair, wise, or safe. Clinton wants a no fly zone over Syria. Essentially, this means an air war with nuclear-armed Russia. Thats why she needs to start spreading propaganda so that she can whip up approval for the war she is already planning.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen
Dani Liebling
Brooklyn, NY
LikeLike