Talk:US presidential elections

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why Trump can't win

I originally wrote this as comment to Andrew Korybko's Facebook post. When the Washington Post published this I shared these points in a Facebook post.

Even if Trump gets a majority of the votes the chances of him actually becoming President are slim. Here are some of the tactics and tricks the Hillary camp could use to block his election. I cannot say what is the probability of these options, but they have all been tested in previous US sponsored color revolutions.

  1. Massive propaganda campaign will pressure the electorate to vote against their favorite candidate.
  2. If Trump still gets over 50% of the vote, the vote count will be falsified. (Something similar seems to have happened in the Austrian presidential election.)
  3. If the election results actually show a victory for Trump, the results will be annulled. DNC will claim that "Putin" hacked the voting machines. The Supreme Court will declare Hillary the winner.
  4. If all else fails, Hillary will call for a Maidan-style occupation of Washington DC. The revolutionaries will take over the Capitol and the White House -- with the support of pro-Hillary officials.

As of October 19th all of this is looking more and more likely. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I continued in the original post on August 16, 2016.

Trump cannot be allowed to win precisely because — as you say on the video — he represents the non-system opposition. He does not even have the support of his own party. This is not a simple question of counting votes. For him to actually become president, he has to win by a large margin.
Andrew, you are an expert on hybrid war. Why would Hillary not unleash the full array of hybrid war weapons on Trump? In fact they are doing it already. Trump has been labeled the "Manchurian Candidate". Ukraine fell to Maidan because no one in Ukraine was willing to defend the institution of the presidency or the Ukrainian constitution. Why would the US be any different.
You write: "4 wouldn't fully succeed because of the counter-Color Revolution technology that the Trump supporters could organize in their own demonstrations and movements" You are wrong. These are not "Trump supporters" but "Putin Trolls". Why would any mainstream media give any voice to these people.
For an anti-Trump Maidan or coup to fail, Trump would personally have to lead the opposition. In doing so he would be putting his life, liberty and fortune at risk. He can be pressured or "advised" to give up the fight. In fact it would be easiest to just assassinate him.
Many things can happen before we are at scenario 4. The simplest option is to escalate a crisis or war with Russia, Hillary's anti-Trump strategy is already framing the election as between her and Putin. In a crisis scenario Trump would simply be dismissed as a Russian enemy agent.
Why am I writing all this delusional stuff about a coup in the US or even of potential civil war?
Democracy requires a free press. That no longer exist in the West. Instead the Powers that Be have created an enormously powerful hybrid war machine that they have turned on Libya, Syria, Russia (and on European democracy). They are able to manipulate reality like never before. They are a huge danger to any state or any democracy.
I am just trying to imagine what would happen if these tools were turned on the USA.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

He won. But...

Back in Oct 2016, I thought that there was a chance for him to win (like unexpected Brexit results), but far from certainty; that it will be decided by elections, with usual election tricks but no essential improper interference. I also assumed that the results will be accepted as it is a tradition to do so. The nasty stuff which followed was unexpected, but I do not think it will result in impeachment or reversal (too weak case to do so; you never know for sure of course, and no limit to nastiness). It is likely result in dysfunction, where significant meaningful changes are not really possible, and are largely substituted by imitations of those, quite chaotic, and with some small net (averaged) movement in more or less correct direction. Falling far short of hopes of some fairer or better world, yet portrayed as success by advocates (with continued bashing by opponents). All this will most likely persist till the next elections. There may be sharp shocks along the way (of the sort of confrontation with North Korea or similar); yet not strong enough to alter very noisy drift to the next elections. Trying something else is too 'expensive' and risky to be rational choice (and irrational, who knows) --Resup (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


  • Why Vladimir Putin's Russia Is Backing Donald Trump - Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek‎, November 4, 2016
    Operations have also been conducted in the United States, primarily out of New York City, Washington, D.C., and Miami. Those involved include a large number of Russian émigrés, as well as Americans and other foreign nationals. Intelligence operations in Europe and the U.S. have determined that the money these émigrés receive for their work is disguised as payments from a Russian pension system.
    This looks potentially seriously phony, Russians receiving their pensions from the Russian government and posting their own views on social networks, happened to be pro-Trump, are cast as acting on the behalf of the Russian government. (Does he really believe that say little Odessa on Brighton Beach can be recruited by the Russian government??? What a schmack.) This makes about as much sense as claiming that Hungary is interfering on the side of Democrats in Soros disguise, and Czech and Slovak republics interfering in Madeline Albright disguise (while Ariel Sharon is British of Russian origin, etc). Maybe Bill Clinton is then Irish, or whatever one may say. If there is real content here, he should have provided real details, not just accuse with a broad brush; and all this looks especially bad taken into account reported details of his previous clash with Sputnik--he should really address those reported details.--Resup (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Enemy Combatants"

  • Russia’s cyberwar against America isn’t over — and the real target is democracy - Bob Cesca, Salon, March 28, 2017
    Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections.
    I know it's kind of sarcasm section, but still. This is usual trick of trying to cast domestic political opponents as foreign agents. Same old trick is used in Russia, where anybody receiving foreign funding and participating in politics or public discourse has to self-report as a foreign agent and possibly banned (+condemned abroad as undermining democracy). Effect of this, here and there, is stifling legitimate domestic political opposition. As far as I could observe, overwhelming bulk of support for Trump was coming from common folk worried about their jobs, economy, etc; and Trump was effective in connecting with those feelings in his 'make America great again' hat. Whatever else was going on (even if it was), was not making much difference, like a few drops in a river. This goes beyond humor, as sensible relations between the West and Russia could enable to solve a number of pressing problems, economic, reducing conflicts and violence levels, etc. With this empty talk, this is being made rather implausible politically, and steer the overall course along the lines advocated by the loosing side in the elections. --Resup (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


'FireEye speculates that behind the hack of France’s TV5Monde television channel there is the popular APT28 that used the pseudonymous ISIS Cyber Caliphate' ,which they say 'is Fancy Bear' . --This sounds really weak. Say if there is a 'bad' IP in Chechnya or Dagestan, you cannot be really sure is it IS of Fancy Bear; could be using same IP domain or could be actually working for whoever pays more, too --Resup (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

George Papadopoulos.

  • Top campaign officials knew of Trump adviser’s outreach to Russia - Washington Post, October 30, 2017
  • Sorting Out the Russia Mess, Robert Parry, Consortium News, October 31, 2017
    In an interview (pay-walled ) with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday’s disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing “dirt” on Clinton and called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a “female Russian national” as a “laughingstock.”
    --Resup (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Some history

In 1996, Yeltsin won his reelection campaign against communists (Ziuganov) with a lot of help from USA (under Bill Clinton presidency at the time). Yeltsin started his campaign with very low rating. Yeltsin used foreign advisers, US designed campaign methods, as well as indirect funding from IMF to solve pressing economic issues and increase his support. In the end, he won. Eventually, Yeltsin appointed Putin as his successor, and in effect he stayed to this day. All that indirectly makes Putin part of Clinton team --perhaps.

  • Moscow Journal;The Americans Who Saved Yeltsin (Or Did They?) -NY Times, 9 July 1996
    The consultants -- George Gorton and Joseph Shumate, two former aides to Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and Richard Dresner, another adviser in Governor Wilson's failed Presidential campaign -- were hired as Yeltsin campaign consultants by Oleg D. Soskovets, a former Deputy Prime Minister, in February. He was dismissed as campaign manager by Mr. Yeltsin in March.
--Resup (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Media coverage

  • CNN looks into April, 1' Russian FM voice message menu, 'to order services of Russian hackers press 2, etc' , April 1, 2017

On polls

See also

In Russia, level of support of pres. Putin stays stably around 80 percent, according to all the three (essentially similar) pollster groups in Russia. What does this number signify? No Putin but Putin? Grigoriy Yudin has a succinct answer: it means nothing. Explanation? Domineering majority staying silent, or being afraid of the domineering majority. How that works? When a pollster comes, majority will not great him with 'I support Putin!'. Rather, -pollster, just go away! Those responding are doing a sort of social bargaining, hoping to have something sorted out (so cannot reject), or are afraid of others; or do not want to be or to feel isolated, or choosing the simplest ending to the situation and getting on with their day. In summary, the number of critically thinking-and doing it decisively - independents in Russia is under 20 %. Another sociologist/pollster is telling that this number at present is not at play, unlike other numbers it poorly correlates with other numbers or reacts to unfolding events, moving other numbers around.

In USA, number of people called independents is increasing and is around 43 percent. What does that mean? Not as much as it appears. In 2016 elections, using wikipedia numbers, only 5.73 % of votes voted outside of the Republican or Democrat choices. Can it be that a silent (or not so silent) majority essentially accepting things as they are, though in a 2 party duality way, is 94 % ? (Well, I am not a sociologist).

Another curious number, in May 2016 Gallup poll, Russians' Approval of U.S. Leadership Drops to Record 1%, the worst rating in the world and the lowest approval Gallup has measured for the U.S. in the past decade; (some 45% in the rest of the world) . Well, it does not have to be that way, so something was clearly going very seriously wrong in that relationship. --Resup (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)