DNC and Russian Hackers

As mentioned in yesterday's article, Russian Hackers got into emails passed between the Democratic Party leadership and the Hillary Clinton campaign.  In these emails it revealed a scheme to remove Bernie Sanders from the race.  Obviously this pissed off a lot of voters in the Democratic Party and has a lot of voters either switching sides, to other candidates like Trump or just not voting at all.  But this is not the biggest issue that comes from this.

These Russian hackers potentially work for the Russian Government.  As such Russia is supporting Donald Trump in the election.  This is all left to theory, but it is my guess that they may find Donald Trump to be a deal maker and thus more likely to end the current proxy war between the United States and Russia going on in Syria with respect to ISIS/ISIL.  But why does Russia want this to end?  Simple, ISIS/ISIL are Sunni Muslim while Russia's allies are Shiite Muslim (Syria and Iran) and Russia can finally build their oil pipeline through the upper part of the Middle East and then reap the economic benefits.  Economic benefits they need as their economy is still not exactly stable.  Additionally Trump does not mind this outside manipulation and influence as it benefits him directly with him even jokingly calling for Russia to release more emails that would make Hillary look bad (something that Trump has taken flack for saying).  And WikiLeaks is going to apparently release more emails as well which may further hurt the Clinton campaign.  

Final Thought:  Do you find it as disturbing as I do that a foreign country is manipulating our elections?  Well if you do not, then you should think again as this means our government will stop being our own.  We could potentially get a puppet President in office and we would stupidly vote them in (Cough think Syria's President Cough Cough).  This is a dangerous situation and we must tread carefully with our want to know what else Hillary Clinton has lied about and the potential of a President Trump.

DNC Reaction

OK we all had a weekend to digest the Democratic national convention and while the presentation was good via excellent speakers, Hillary was overshadowed according to the pundits (Hers was one of the few speeches I missed).  But here is my analysis with some pundits analysis mixed in to make up for what I was missing.

So every speaker at the convention that I saw was great and that includes Michelle Obama and of course President Obama and former President Bill Clinton.  The crowd got swept up in the speeches and it humanized Hillary Clinton.  This was a necessary component as she is often seen as simply a cut throat politician.  Bernie Sanders though was booed by the crowed as he threw his support behind Hillary.  I think this is in part due to the honesty that Bernie represents in politics even if you do not agree with his politics, while Hillary is viewed as a liar and a cheat.  Even worse Russian Hackers released emails that showed that Hillary and the rest of the DNC conspired to remove Bernie from the race.  This is a black mark on Hillary and her campaign let alone the DNC.  This will make the DNC look like it is subverting the Democratic process even though political parties are technically not officially part of the election.  Selections of candidates have always been decided by the party heads and it is only recent that political parties allow any sort of Democratic control by its members.  

Final Thought:  Overall it was all about clinching Hillary as the nominee as the first woman candidate for President in a major political party.  It was all about making her look less like a scheming politician and more of a human being with family values and a family (dysfunctional though they may be).  However hard liners in her party criticize her choice for Vice President saying he is too far to the middle, but this is a calculated move to appeal to the right in the general election especially voters who are disenfranchised by Donald Trump.  However, despite the success of the convention, the DNC and Hillary's campaign is bleeding money, while Trump is spending modest sums.  This may come down to who can out last who in with respect to funding so as to avoid fizzling out.

Hillary's VP: Who is Tim Kaine

Senator Tim Kaine was chosen as Hillary Clinton's running mate.  The man is a Harvard law graduate, attorney and a Senator since 2012.  Additionally he served as Mayor of Richmond Virginia, and lieutenant governor and then Governor of Virginia as well.  So who is he?

For one he is an environmentalist and a believer in climate change even going so far as preserving over 400,000 acres of land.  He signed legislation banning smoking on government property and in restaurants in Virginia.  He also expanded mental health care access in Virginia after the Virginia tech shootings and has it so that anyone involuntarily committed cannot get a firearm.  As Virginia's governor he made tough decisions on cutting spending to meet that State's requirements on balancing the budgets.  He also proposed a $4 billion in tax increases but none of these passed.  He also served as Democratic national committee chair from 2009 to 2011.  He served as a member on the armed services committee, committee on budget, and committee on foreign relations while serving in Congress.  While in the Senate he serves on numerous other committees and sub committees relating to national security and power projection including "Emerging threats and Capabilities", "Sea power" and also served on committees relating to counter terrorism in Parts of Asia and trade.  Basically this guy has experience in areas that Hillary Clinton may be lacking in and more.

Final Thought:  Senator Kaine is actually somewhat conservative.  He is personally against abortion, but supports Roe vs Wade.  So he basically does not want the Federal government to be making reproductive decisions but does support some restrictions like parental involvement for minors.  Also, he is in favor of LGBT community rights such as gay marriage (something I am not opposed to either).  Overall he is more middle of the road than Hillary Clinton and more likely to compromise on issues.  So a great choice by her to attract people who have not decided who they are voting for or are middle ground politically which normally would be turned off by Hillary's far left Progressiveness. 

Trump's VP: Who is Mike Pence

So Donald Trump chose Governor Mike Pence of Indiana to be his running mate.  Before that he represented Indiana's 2nd and 6th congressional districts from 2001 to 2013, before being elected Governor in 2013, a position he has held since.  But what does he stand for?

He is a supporter of the TEA Party and their support for limiting the size of government, taxes, and government spending.  He has served on multiple committees in congress including the judiciary committee, small business committee, agriculture committee, international affairs committee and foreign affairs committee.  Basically he has a well-rounded background with respect to government experience and knows his way around Washington, hence this is the reason why Trump chose him.  Trump needed someone who could help him know how to work the mess that is Washington D.C.'s politics and it turns out that it is Governor Pence.  Likewise Pence is a TEA party guy just like Ted Cruz, and just like Cruz is against abortion, something that will appeal to the more conservative crowd of the Republican Party and the conservative groups in between.  He also opposed the Wall Street bailouts, opposed "card check" (something that would have eliminated the secret ballot for union votes) and called for a flat tax that would allow for people to keep more of their income.  Pence even voted for Earmark reform, for partial privatization of Social Security, and is in favor of free trade agreements.  Overall a very staunch conservative and his policies reflect that.

Final Thought:  To me he is a white Ted Cruz!  They share similar views and ideas on reform, and both support the TEA party and reform in Washington D.C.  Even their views on homosexuality and abortion are similar.  This man, Governor Pence was a great choice in making Trump more palatable to the Republican base and staunch conservatives.  

Trumps Acceptance Speech

Ok, so some of the wording in Trump's speech had me and other libertarians worried, those libertarians being John Stossel and Glenn Beck.  Basically something did not sit right and sounded very fascistic.

In the speech the words "I am the Law and Order candidate", “I am your voice", "I will fix the problems", "I will end the violence" were all used.  It felt very top down.  As if a President Trump would be akin to an emperor and order all our problems away.  That the people had nothing to do but do as they were told.  For libertarians like myself this is antithetical to our thinking.  A president to many of my ilk want a President to hold back the corruption and say "yes you the people will" and "I will empower you and protect your freedom".  But instead we got chants from the crowd saying "yes you will" with Trump being the "YOU" as the person to take care of everything.  Essentially we are chaining ourselves to someone as metaphorical slaves.

On top of the aforementioned, Trump said that he will not allow businesses to move overseas, a statement reiterated by Ryan Priebus (current head of the GOP) and some of Trump's children.  Basically a fascist policy of punishing businesses from going overseas (a sentiment shared with the Democratic Party to my knowledge).  Problem is, no law and no government is allowed to infringe upon a business's right to leave the country or to do any sort of business overseas.  This is based on the principle of tacit consent where if you do not like the laws in your home country you can move with the expectation of obeying the laws of the place you move too.  Basically you can choose which laws to follow by moving somewhere else.  But the way it sounds from Trump and the current RNC is that freedom will be taken away.

Final Thought:  These are the key points that made libertarians wonder if Trump is the lesser of two evils and if such a concept can be accepted in American politics anymore.  At the rate it is going, Hillary and Trump are both potentially equally as bad as each other (Hillary being as bad with respect to government takeovers of businesses, the economy and health care).  Hopefully me, Beck and Stossel are wrong and that those words are merely for the impact and not the policy, but words tend to have deeper meanings behind them.  I hope I am wrong.

RNC reaction

We have come a long way from the old school politics of backroom deals, or have we?  The Republican National Convention and this week's Democratic National Convention both give the illusion of choice with respect to which candidates are chosen to possibly lead.  However, like all Presidential picks, it is the party uplifting select members of the party and then having the core of the party choose who will represent them.  In this case it is Donald Trump.  Which basically means he was chosen because he can bring in more votes than the other potential candidates and thus a win for the Republican Party this November.

Like most conventions, the family of the candidate is used like a chess piece.  You need to humanize the candidate so that people know that despite being well off that they are family men and women and thus can emphasize with the little people.  Also, if you notice that the media made sure to place emphasis on the fact that Trump and his children did not use Teleprompters.  This in part is a dig at President Obama and at the same time to show that these kids and this potential President are special (not many people can memorize a 50 to 120 minute speech and then say it as well as they did).  

There were some well-deserved critics of some of the speakers though.  Governor Christie among others mocked Hillary, but this was neither the time nor the place to do so according to analysts at Fox news.  The analysts said that this is supposed to be a time to prop the candidate up and show support, not a time to attack.   Needless to say when President Bush and his family, along with Senator Cruz said they will not be supporting Donald Trump it caused a stir in the crowd, especially Cruz's speech which was all about being principled.  Cruz of course was mocked, but he is standing up to his principles and there should not be anything wrong with that.

Final Thought:  In my opinion, the RNC did what it normally does.  There was nothing unexpected that occurred at all during the event save Cruz's speech.  However Trumps acceptance speech for the nomination had some disturbing elements which I will be focusing on tomorrow.  Overall rating of the convention by me is a 5 out of 10.  It appealed to the base and people who are patriotic and that is it.

News overshadows News

It was an eventful and saddening weekend to say the least.  Thursday was a terror attack in France, then Friday was the coup in Turkey and then Sunday the Police being murdered in Baton Rouge.  With each incident the stories got overshadowed by one another in the media, even Trumps Vice presidential pick.  A cycle of attention flipping that seems to be never ending. Once Turkey's coup occurred the American media went silent on France, and then on Sunday they went silent on Turkey for the shooting of the police.  It goes to show you that when a news event occurs they are more concerned about ratings rather than the story that needs to be told.  All the events are important and should not overshadow one another in my opinion.  

This overshadowing I think plays into corporate greed and our attention spans.  The Media jumps from one event to another to keep people watching their ads. and entice more companies to buy ad space so that they make money.  Basically, the more attention grabbing stories will get all the focus because it is new and fresh. Thus  yesterday’s story becomes just that, yesterdays.  I find the lack of analysis annoying.  I want more details and knowledge of potential impacts on my way of life and the world at large, but the media just wants you and your money.

Final Thought:  Reporters are supposed to be historians as the first recorders of history.  They have an obligation to wrench out every little detail and then confirm all the facts so that history does not get it wrong and that we can learn lessons from these incidents.  But news just flips from one subject to another to accommodate our short attention spans while filling the news media's pockets with cash.  It is upsetting to me because the victims and those sacrificed in these incidents, including potential future victims, deserve more from our media.  They deserve more from us so that we learn how to prevent evil from occurring again.