The Helpless Americans Under Russia's All-Powerful Thumb

Vanity Fair's April article "The Kremlin Connection" reflects the media's myopic and skewed analysis of the 2016 Presidential Election.  In the article, author Howard Blum states that in the face of alleged Russian hacking "the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was impugned."

If Russian hacking impugns an election, then what do the internal machinations of the Democratic Party to squelch Bernie's campaign, and the Hillary Campaign hiring agitators for Trump's rallies do?  I find it nonsensical that these internal scandals, which speak to a sick and decaying Democratic system, are largely overlooked, and reform is hardly called for, at the same time that enormous attention and outrage--literally calling into question the legitimacy of the election--is given to the alleged Russian hacking.

Blum goes on to make the claim that "the potential president of the United States possibly being under Russia's thumb".  Are Americans really so pathetically helpless to the omnipotent Putin?

This claim that we're Putin's little pawn, and that whoever he gets his paws on he will have his way with, is laughable and embarrassing.  And quite frankly, simply untrue.  After all, both the US and Russia possess comparable amounts of WMD, giving us a level playing fields, militarily.

Given that these claim are totally nonsensical, it's clear that The Russia Obsession is motivated by something other than facts.  (Even if he HAD hacked, which is still unproven, Putin didn't call our fucking election!)

More than likely, then, this obsession with Russia is really just a deflection away from the erroneous pundits, and a refusal of these the snotty as hell dumbfucks in the media to eat crow.

Consider the "expert" David Pluffe, in the "Night Before the Election" Keeping it 1600 Podcast, stating that it'd be nearly impossible for Hillary not to win, or the other demonstrated political "expert" James Carville, in the Vanity Fair article entitled "The Republican Party Has Committed Suicide" claiming that a Trump win was inconceivable.

Or Charlie Rose, who demonstrated an overt partiality towards the Democrats by covering their convention three times as much as the Republican Convention.

Or this, LMAO, arrogant as hell tweet from the statistics expert Nate Silver, who gave Trump a 28% chance of winning, in which he dismisses claims that the enthusiasm gap between the two candidates may be something to pay attention to, and favors looking sheerly at polls.
Or this, zOMG, quote from David Brooks article on November 4th "The Banality of Change" (if the  New York Times wasn't snotty af they would have fired him for this article)

A few weeks ago I met a guy in Idaho who was absolutely certain that Donald Trump would win this election. He was wearing tattered, soiled overalls, missing a bunch of teeth and was unnaturally skinny….He was getting by aimlessly as a handyman. I pointed to the polls and tried to persuade him that Hillary Clinton might win, but it was like telling him a sea gull could play billiards.
Look at this embarrassing nonsense!  Look at who we've elevated to the position of experts!

How can these people continue to maintain their positions as experts unless they can find a scapegoat?  Unless they can help us to forget how dead wrong they were just days before the elections?

Ugh, and thus we are forced to hear, over and over and over and over and over and over again ad nauseam about these all powerful Russians who have us under their thumb.

No comments

Post a Comment