- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
西方国家不是一直信奉市场经济么。
美国总统选举: 几个州重新点票
- 主题发起人 ccc
- 开始时间
西方国家不是一直信奉市场经济么。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Hillary Clinton backs US election recount as Donald Trump calls it a scam
HILLARY Clinton will join forces with the Green party and challenge the result of the US election – sparking fears the failed Presidential candidate could usurp Donald Trump and storm the White House.
By Harry Walker
PUBLISHED: 02:44, Sun, Nov 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 12:39, Sun, Nov 27, 2016
Clinton’s team mooted its support the recount in Wisconsin which has been plotted by Jill Stein – and would also help potential recounts in a further two key swing states.
Marc Elias, the Clinton camp’s general counsel, said that the campaign would team-up with flailing Green party candidate Stein to see through attempts to salvage Clinton’s catastrophic failure in the election.
Clinton's campaign will join Stein's efforts in the hope of swaying the election result.
Elias admitted there was no “actionable evidence” that efforts by Russia had swayed the outcome, and acknowledged there was little chance any recount would make a difference.
He wrote: “Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves.
“But now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.”
Stein raised more than $5 million to fund the hopeless effort, submitting the request an hour before the deadline Friday afternoon.
The scheme garnered support from embittered Clinton supporters who frequently complained interference from Russia influenced the results.
The Democrat’s move to join forces with the Green party has drawn criticism from Trump who condemned the move.
The billionaire Republican blasted Jill Stein’s “scam” to initiate a recount in Wisconsin and attacked the “badly defeated and demoralised” Democratic party for joining the bid to overthrow democracy.
Clinton’s campaign will join the efforts despite the fact President Obama’s administrations issued a statement Saturday concluding the election was free of outside interference.
It added: “The federal government did not observe any increased level of cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day.”
HILLARY Clinton will join forces with the Green party and challenge the result of the US election – sparking fears the failed Presidential candidate could usurp Donald Trump and storm the White House.
By Harry Walker
PUBLISHED: 02:44, Sun, Nov 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 12:39, Sun, Nov 27, 2016
Clinton’s team mooted its support the recount in Wisconsin which has been plotted by Jill Stein – and would also help potential recounts in a further two key swing states.
Marc Elias, the Clinton camp’s general counsel, said that the campaign would team-up with flailing Green party candidate Stein to see through attempts to salvage Clinton’s catastrophic failure in the election.
Clinton's campaign will join Stein's efforts in the hope of swaying the election result.
Elias admitted there was no “actionable evidence” that efforts by Russia had swayed the outcome, and acknowledged there was little chance any recount would make a difference.
He wrote: “Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves.
“But now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.”
Stein raised more than $5 million to fund the hopeless effort, submitting the request an hour before the deadline Friday afternoon.
The scheme garnered support from embittered Clinton supporters who frequently complained interference from Russia influenced the results.
The Democrat’s move to join forces with the Green party has drawn criticism from Trump who condemned the move.
The billionaire Republican blasted Jill Stein’s “scam” to initiate a recount in Wisconsin and attacked the “badly defeated and demoralised” Democratic party for joining the bid to overthrow democracy.
Clinton’s campaign will join the efforts despite the fact President Obama’s administrations issued a statement Saturday concluding the election was free of outside interference.
It added: “The federal government did not observe any increased level of cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day.”
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
U.S. elections are a mess, even though there’s no evidence this one was hacked
Unproven reports of possible discrepancies in the Rust Belt just show how untrustworthy the system is.
Washington Post, By Bruce Schneier
November 23
Was the 2016 presidential election hacked? It’s hard to tell. There were no obvious hacks on Election Day, but new reports have raised the question of whether voting machines were tampered with in three states that Donald Trump won this month: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The researchers behind these reports include voting rights lawyer John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, both respected in the community. They have been talking with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but their analysis is not yet public.
According to a report in New York magazine, the share of votes received by Clinton was significantly lower in precincts that used a particular type of voting machine: The magazine story suggested that Clinton had received 7 percent fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that used electronic machines, which could be hacked, than in counties that used paper ballots. That is exactly the sort of result we would expect to see if there had been some sort of voting machine hack. There are many different types of voting machines, and attacks against one type would not work against the others. So a voting anomaly correlated to machine type could be a red flag, although Trump did better across the entire Midwest than pre-election polls expected, and there are also some correlations between voting machine type and the demographics of the various precincts. Even Halderman wrote early Wednesday morning that “the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.”
What the allegations, and the ripples they’re causing on social media, really show is how fundamentally untrustworthy our hodgepodge election system is.
Accountability is a major problem for U.S. elections. The candidates are the ones required to petition for recounts, and we throw the matter into the courts when we can’t figure it out. This all happens after an election, and because the battle lines have already been drawn, the process is intensely political. Unlike many other countries, we don’t have an independent body empowered to investigate these matters. There is no government agency empowered to verify these researchers’ claims, even if it would be merely to reassure voters that the election count was accurate.
Instead, we have a patchwork of voting systems: different rules, different machines, different standards. I’ve seen arguments that there is security in this setup — an attacker can’t broadly attack the entire country — but the downsides of this system are much more critical. National standards would significantly improve our voting process.
Further investigation of the claims raised by the researchers would help settle this particular question. Unfortunately, time is of the essence — underscoring another problem with how we conduct elections. For anything to happen, Clinton has to call for a recount and investigation. She has until Friday to do it in Wisconsin, until Monday in Pennsylvania and until next Wednesday in Michigan. I don’t expect the research team to have any better data before then. Without changes to the system, we’re telling future hackers that they can be successful as long as they’re able to hide their attacks for a few weeks until after the recount deadlines pass.
Computer forensics investigations are not easy, and they’re not quick. They require access to the machines. They involve analysis of Internet traffic. If we suspect a foreign country like Russia, the National Security Agency will analyze what they’ve intercepted from that country. This could easily take weeks, perhaps even months. And in the end, we might not even get a definitive answer. And even if we do end up with evidence that the voting machines were hacked, we don’t have rules about what to do next.
Although winning those three states would flip the election, I predict Clinton will do nothing (her campaign, after all, has reportedly been aware of the researchers’ work for nearly a week). Not because she does not believe the researchers — although she might not — but because she doesn’t want to throw the post-election process into turmoil by starting a highly politicized process whose eventual outcome will have little to do with computer forensics and a lot to do with which party has more power in the three states.
But we only have two years until the next national elections, and it’s time to start fixing things if we don’t want to be wondering the same things about hackers in 2018. The risks are real: Electronic voting machines that don’t use a paper ballot are vulnerable to hacking.
Clinton supporters are seizing on this story as their last lifeline of hope. I sympathize with them. When I wrote about vote-hacking the day after the election, I said: “Elections serve two purposes. First, and most obvious, they are how we choose a winner. But second, and equally important, they convince the loser — and all the supporters — that he or she lost.” If the election system fails to do the second, we risk undermining the legitimacy of our democratic process. Clinton’s supporters deserve to know whether this apparent statistical anomaly is the result of a hack against our election system or a spurious correlation. They deserve an election that is demonstrably fair and accurate. Our patchwork, ad hoc system means they may never feel confident in the outcome. And that will further erode the trust we have in our election systems.
Unproven reports of possible discrepancies in the Rust Belt just show how untrustworthy the system is.
Washington Post, By Bruce Schneier
November 23
Was the 2016 presidential election hacked? It’s hard to tell. There were no obvious hacks on Election Day, but new reports have raised the question of whether voting machines were tampered with in three states that Donald Trump won this month: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The researchers behind these reports include voting rights lawyer John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, both respected in the community. They have been talking with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but their analysis is not yet public.
According to a report in New York magazine, the share of votes received by Clinton was significantly lower in precincts that used a particular type of voting machine: The magazine story suggested that Clinton had received 7 percent fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that used electronic machines, which could be hacked, than in counties that used paper ballots. That is exactly the sort of result we would expect to see if there had been some sort of voting machine hack. There are many different types of voting machines, and attacks against one type would not work against the others. So a voting anomaly correlated to machine type could be a red flag, although Trump did better across the entire Midwest than pre-election polls expected, and there are also some correlations between voting machine type and the demographics of the various precincts. Even Halderman wrote early Wednesday morning that “the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.”
What the allegations, and the ripples they’re causing on social media, really show is how fundamentally untrustworthy our hodgepodge election system is.
Accountability is a major problem for U.S. elections. The candidates are the ones required to petition for recounts, and we throw the matter into the courts when we can’t figure it out. This all happens after an election, and because the battle lines have already been drawn, the process is intensely political. Unlike many other countries, we don’t have an independent body empowered to investigate these matters. There is no government agency empowered to verify these researchers’ claims, even if it would be merely to reassure voters that the election count was accurate.
Instead, we have a patchwork of voting systems: different rules, different machines, different standards. I’ve seen arguments that there is security in this setup — an attacker can’t broadly attack the entire country — but the downsides of this system are much more critical. National standards would significantly improve our voting process.
Further investigation of the claims raised by the researchers would help settle this particular question. Unfortunately, time is of the essence — underscoring another problem with how we conduct elections. For anything to happen, Clinton has to call for a recount and investigation. She has until Friday to do it in Wisconsin, until Monday in Pennsylvania and until next Wednesday in Michigan. I don’t expect the research team to have any better data before then. Without changes to the system, we’re telling future hackers that they can be successful as long as they’re able to hide their attacks for a few weeks until after the recount deadlines pass.
Computer forensics investigations are not easy, and they’re not quick. They require access to the machines. They involve analysis of Internet traffic. If we suspect a foreign country like Russia, the National Security Agency will analyze what they’ve intercepted from that country. This could easily take weeks, perhaps even months. And in the end, we might not even get a definitive answer. And even if we do end up with evidence that the voting machines were hacked, we don’t have rules about what to do next.
Although winning those three states would flip the election, I predict Clinton will do nothing (her campaign, after all, has reportedly been aware of the researchers’ work for nearly a week). Not because she does not believe the researchers — although she might not — but because she doesn’t want to throw the post-election process into turmoil by starting a highly politicized process whose eventual outcome will have little to do with computer forensics and a lot to do with which party has more power in the three states.
But we only have two years until the next national elections, and it’s time to start fixing things if we don’t want to be wondering the same things about hackers in 2018. The risks are real: Electronic voting machines that don’t use a paper ballot are vulnerable to hacking.
Clinton supporters are seizing on this story as their last lifeline of hope. I sympathize with them. When I wrote about vote-hacking the day after the election, I said: “Elections serve two purposes. First, and most obvious, they are how we choose a winner. But second, and equally important, they convince the loser — and all the supporters — that he or she lost.” If the election system fails to do the second, we risk undermining the legitimacy of our democratic process. Clinton’s supporters deserve to know whether this apparent statistical anomaly is the result of a hack against our election system or a spurious correlation. They deserve an election that is demonstrably fair and accurate. Our patchwork, ad hoc system means they may never feel confident in the outcome. And that will further erode the trust we have in our election systems.
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Donald Trump says 'millions voted illegally' for Clinton but offers no evidence
Donald Trump has continued his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s support for election recounts in three states, claiming he won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally”.
The president-elect, who offered no evidence for his claims, earlier called the recount effort a “scam”, while senior adviser Kellyanne Conway called Green party candidate Jill Stein and Clinton “a bunch of crybabies and sore losers”.
Marc Elias, general counsel for the Clinton campaign, wrote on Saturday that the campaign would support Stein’s effort in Wisconsin, where a recount will take place. Stein is also pushing for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan and has raised more than $6m online to fund such efforts.
The decision put the Clinton camp at odds with the Obama White House, which has expressed confidence in election results.
On Saturday, Trump attacked Stein, using Twitter to say: “The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated [and] demoralized Dems.”
On Sunday morning, the president-elect fired off a volley of tweets, starting: “Hillary Clinton conceded the election when she called me just prior to the victory speech and after the results were in. Nothing will change.”
The president-elect then drew attention to a debate remark by Clinton after Trump refused to commit to accepting the election result, quoting her as saying: “That is horrifying. That is not the way our democracy works.
“Been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a during a general election.
“I, for one, am appalled that somebody that is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.”
Trump was due back in New York on Sunday after spending Thanksgiving at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where one report said he had been asking visitors who should be his secretary of state.
In the afternoon, around the time of his scheduled departure for Manhattan, he used Twitter to say: “In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
Donald Trump’s tweet. Photograph: Screengrab
Trump did not elaborate about what he meant by “people who voted illegally”. During the campaign, he and surrogates complained about voter identity fraud among communities which usually lean Democratic, without presenting evidence and despite regular debunking of such claims by experts.
In subsequent tweets, he added: “It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the electoral college in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4 states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!”
Trump trails Clinton by more than 2m ballots in the popular vote.
Stein’s recount effort, backed by a coalition of academics and activists, is based on fears that election machinery may have been hacked, although no evidence has yet been presented.
The White House has distanced itself from the effort. Referring to attempts to influence the election that have been officially blamed on Russia, it said in a statement the election results nonetheless “accurately reflect the will of the American people”.
In a statement emailed to the Guardian on Sunday, Stein said: “The incredible outpouring of support for these recounts – from over 100,000 small donors with an average of $45 each – shows that Americans of all parties want a voting system they can trust.
“In an election tarnished by allegations and irregularities, Americans of all political persuasions deserve to know the truth about what happened in these states.”
Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders supported the legal right to request a recount but told CNN’s State of the Union: “I don’t think Hillary Clinton, who got 2m more votes than Mr Trump, thinks that it’s going to transform the election.”
Conway countered, telling CNN the decision to back Stein was “pretty incredible”.
“I was asked, like, a thousand times, will Donald Trump accept the election results,” she said, “and now you have the Democrats and Jill Stein saying they will not accept the election results? [Clinton] congratulated him and she conceded to him on election night and now we’re going to drag this out? It’s pretty incredible.”
She added: “The president-elect has been incredibly gracious and magnanimous to Hillary Clinton at a time when, for whatever reason, her folks are saying they will join any recount to try to somehow undo the 70-plus electoral votes that he beat her by.”
On NBC’s Meet the Press she went further, saying of Clinton and Stein: “Their president, Barack Obama, is going to be in office eight more weeks .
“They will have to decide if they’re going to interfere with his business and the peaceful transition of power to president-elect Donald Trump or [if] they’re going to be a bunch of cry babies and sore losers about an election they can’t turn around.”
In his post, Elias detailed the Clinton campaign’s thinking: “We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.
“We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states ” – Michigan, where the Republican leads by 10,704 votes with the result expected to be certified on Monday – “well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.
“But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”
Wisconsin’s recount, including an examination by hand of the nearly 3m ballots tabulated in the state, is expected to begin late next week and to be completed by 13 December.
Clinton beat Trump by more than 2 million votes nationwide, but Trump won in the electoral college by 306-232. In Wisconsin, Trump beat Clinton by 27,257 votes. Stein received 30,980 votes and the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, received 106,442.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/27/donald-trump-scam-recount-jill-stein-hillary-clinton
Donald Trump has continued his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s support for election recounts in three states, claiming he won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally”.
The president-elect, who offered no evidence for his claims, earlier called the recount effort a “scam”, while senior adviser Kellyanne Conway called Green party candidate Jill Stein and Clinton “a bunch of crybabies and sore losers”.
Marc Elias, general counsel for the Clinton campaign, wrote on Saturday that the campaign would support Stein’s effort in Wisconsin, where a recount will take place. Stein is also pushing for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan and has raised more than $6m online to fund such efforts.
The decision put the Clinton camp at odds with the Obama White House, which has expressed confidence in election results.
On Saturday, Trump attacked Stein, using Twitter to say: “The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated [and] demoralized Dems.”
On Sunday morning, the president-elect fired off a volley of tweets, starting: “Hillary Clinton conceded the election when she called me just prior to the victory speech and after the results were in. Nothing will change.”
The president-elect then drew attention to a debate remark by Clinton after Trump refused to commit to accepting the election result, quoting her as saying: “That is horrifying. That is not the way our democracy works.
“Been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a during a general election.
“I, for one, am appalled that somebody that is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.”
Trump was due back in New York on Sunday after spending Thanksgiving at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where one report said he had been asking visitors who should be his secretary of state.
In the afternoon, around the time of his scheduled departure for Manhattan, he used Twitter to say: “In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
Donald Trump’s tweet. Photograph: Screengrab
Trump did not elaborate about what he meant by “people who voted illegally”. During the campaign, he and surrogates complained about voter identity fraud among communities which usually lean Democratic, without presenting evidence and despite regular debunking of such claims by experts.
In subsequent tweets, he added: “It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the electoral college in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4 states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!”
Trump trails Clinton by more than 2m ballots in the popular vote.
Stein’s recount effort, backed by a coalition of academics and activists, is based on fears that election machinery may have been hacked, although no evidence has yet been presented.
The White House has distanced itself from the effort. Referring to attempts to influence the election that have been officially blamed on Russia, it said in a statement the election results nonetheless “accurately reflect the will of the American people”.
In a statement emailed to the Guardian on Sunday, Stein said: “The incredible outpouring of support for these recounts – from over 100,000 small donors with an average of $45 each – shows that Americans of all parties want a voting system they can trust.
“In an election tarnished by allegations and irregularities, Americans of all political persuasions deserve to know the truth about what happened in these states.”
Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders supported the legal right to request a recount but told CNN’s State of the Union: “I don’t think Hillary Clinton, who got 2m more votes than Mr Trump, thinks that it’s going to transform the election.”
Conway countered, telling CNN the decision to back Stein was “pretty incredible”.
“I was asked, like, a thousand times, will Donald Trump accept the election results,” she said, “and now you have the Democrats and Jill Stein saying they will not accept the election results? [Clinton] congratulated him and she conceded to him on election night and now we’re going to drag this out? It’s pretty incredible.”
She added: “The president-elect has been incredibly gracious and magnanimous to Hillary Clinton at a time when, for whatever reason, her folks are saying they will join any recount to try to somehow undo the 70-plus electoral votes that he beat her by.”
On NBC’s Meet the Press she went further, saying of Clinton and Stein: “Their president, Barack Obama, is going to be in office eight more weeks .
“They will have to decide if they’re going to interfere with his business and the peaceful transition of power to president-elect Donald Trump or [if] they’re going to be a bunch of cry babies and sore losers about an election they can’t turn around.”
In his post, Elias detailed the Clinton campaign’s thinking: “We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.
“We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states ” – Michigan, where the Republican leads by 10,704 votes with the result expected to be certified on Monday – “well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.
“But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”
Wisconsin’s recount, including an examination by hand of the nearly 3m ballots tabulated in the state, is expected to begin late next week and to be completed by 13 December.
Clinton beat Trump by more than 2 million votes nationwide, but Trump won in the electoral college by 306-232. In Wisconsin, Trump beat Clinton by 27,257 votes. Stein received 30,980 votes and the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, received 106,442.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/27/donald-trump-scam-recount-jill-stein-hillary-clinton
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
The US election recount is a long shot – but the alternative is catastrophe
Rebecca Solnit
It’s unlikely that a recount will change the election’s outcome, but the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency means it’s time to think big
Demonstrators protest against Donald Trump in front of Trump Tower earlier this month in New York. Photograph: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images
Tuesday 29 November 2016 13.32 GMT
When big changes and dangers arise, you have to think big. You don’t put out a forest fire with a glass of water. Thinking small can prevent you from even recognizing trouble, let alone your options for overcoming it. There’s never been a time when thinking big matters more than now. Many across the United States are now trying to figure out how to survive Trump, but it may still be possible to stop him. His regime is not yet inevitable.
It’s a long shot, but one worth trying, the way someone diagnosed with a disease with a 3% survival rate might want to do what it takes to try to be part of the 3%. You don’t get there if you give up at the outset. Trump represents a catastrophe on a scale many seem to have trouble grasping, an attack on what remains democratic and uncorrupted in our old and messy system of government, a threat to international stability, to efforts to address climate change, and to human rights at home and around the world.
Is it possible to prevent him from taking power? Why not explore the wildest possibilities, when the alternative is surrendering to the worst? It may be very possible – but only if we imagine it is possible and work to make the possible the actual.
It is too soon to give up. It is too soon to reconcile ourselves to surviving Trump when the possibility of preventing him is before us. It was a huge surprise that Jill Stein and the Green party chose to demand recounts in three swing states, and another that the Clinton campaign got onboard. What the recount reveals may also be a surprise. People have used “game changer” a lot, but the game of figuring out what this election means and where it takes us seems to change daily, and some of that change depends on what we do. Why not seize history before it tramples us?
What if the recount Jill Stein and the Green party have initiated finds that Trump’s small, surprising lead in three swing states vanishes when the ballots are reviewed? What if Alexandra Chalupa’s report now on its way to Congress presents compelling evidence that the election was hacked? What if the election investigations Republican senator Lindsey Graham and others have asked for reveal corruption or collusion? What if someone (please) finally does some really solid work on investigating the numerous ties between the Trump campaign team and Russia and finds – well, shouldn’t we know what the influences and collaborations, if any, have been?
We are in a national emergency as an alarmingly incompetent and utterly amoral gang prepares to destroy the climate, human rights, the foreign policy positions the US has relied on for stability since the second world war, and more. You don’t have to love Clinton or Stein to see that this is a radical departure from where we have been.
A story that has haunted me for decades is about the equipment monitoring the ozone layer over the South Pole decades ago. The computer program was written to filter out improbable data and so missed the dramatic change in the atmosphere until the glitch in the program was eliminated. There’s a status quo bias at work in our mainstream media and too many of our organizations that normalizes the outrageous. There’s been a lot of talk about “normalizing” the Trump team’s players and agenda. We might also talk about normalizing astonishing news and enormous threats. News that should scream at us in six-inch-high letters on the front page is presented in a mumble inside: stuff like the fact that we are running out of time to address catastrophic climate change, and also the Trump administration promises to sabotage all efforts to address climate change. We must not normalize catastrophe out of a desire to seem calm or moderate.
As the New York Times reported, nine days before the election Barack Obama used his communications system to tell Russian leader Vladimir Putin to stop meddling in the US election. “The White House confirmed in a statement on Wednesday that eight days before the presidential election, the United States ‘contacted the Russian government directly regarding malicious cyberactivity’ that was ‘targeting US state election-related systems’. It sent the message over a rarely used system: a hotline connecting the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers in both countries, which they had agreed three years ago could also be employed to deal with major cyberincidents,” the New York Times report said.
Advertisement
These kinds of stories raise questions so big no one seems to have asked them. Are we in the middle of a cyberwar? And did the Russians hack the election in ways that changed the outcome?
What does it mean that, as the Washington Post quietly reported after the election: “Russian government officials conferred with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said.”
There are no precedents for the situations we find ourselves in, which is why we need to think big about how to respond. I visited Japan after the great Tohuko earthquake of 2011. Many people died because they evacuated to the right height to escape tsunamis they remembered; they were drowned by a tsunami bigger than any in living memory. Extreme responses to extreme situations are appropriate.
This week Harvard professor and award-winning Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder issued cautions about surviving anti-democratic regimes. “Do not obey in advance,” he advised. “Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.” Anticipatory disobedience keeps open space for our power, our voices, and our rights. That’s part of what thinking big means, but in this moment it can mean more.
Regimes have been toppled by the daring whose daring manifested as the imagination to believe that things could be different, the confidence that we have the power to pursue those possibilities, and the courage to pursue them. These last few weeks I’ve been thinking about how what looked like small, feeble-looking efforts in eastern Europe grew and amassed over the years to topple a series of Soviet satellite regimes in 1989. The audacity, the courage, the vision of the people gathered around the Polish Solidarity movement, the musicians and theater people in Czechoslovakia, the religious and secular groups in East Germany: their spirit and actions shattered the eastern bloc of Soviet-aligned nations. In 2013, Ukrainians rose up and drove out Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt Russian-backed president.
We may need to be courageous and strategic as they were; we may need to be for years to come. But now we have an extraordinary opportunity to prevent the worst-case scenario now facing us or at the very least to weaken and marginalize and discredit an outrageous regime-in-waiting. The possibilities before us in this moment are like a series of open doors; as time passes, doors will slam shut behind us. There is no better time; there is no one else to seize the possibilities. It’s up to us, which means it’s up to you. Think big. And act. Everything depends on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/us-election-recount-trump-hacking
Rebecca Solnit
It’s unlikely that a recount will change the election’s outcome, but the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency means it’s time to think big
Demonstrators protest against Donald Trump in front of Trump Tower earlier this month in New York. Photograph: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images
Tuesday 29 November 2016 13.32 GMT
When big changes and dangers arise, you have to think big. You don’t put out a forest fire with a glass of water. Thinking small can prevent you from even recognizing trouble, let alone your options for overcoming it. There’s never been a time when thinking big matters more than now. Many across the United States are now trying to figure out how to survive Trump, but it may still be possible to stop him. His regime is not yet inevitable.
It’s a long shot, but one worth trying, the way someone diagnosed with a disease with a 3% survival rate might want to do what it takes to try to be part of the 3%. You don’t get there if you give up at the outset. Trump represents a catastrophe on a scale many seem to have trouble grasping, an attack on what remains democratic and uncorrupted in our old and messy system of government, a threat to international stability, to efforts to address climate change, and to human rights at home and around the world.
Is it possible to prevent him from taking power? Why not explore the wildest possibilities, when the alternative is surrendering to the worst? It may be very possible – but only if we imagine it is possible and work to make the possible the actual.
It is too soon to give up. It is too soon to reconcile ourselves to surviving Trump when the possibility of preventing him is before us. It was a huge surprise that Jill Stein and the Green party chose to demand recounts in three swing states, and another that the Clinton campaign got onboard. What the recount reveals may also be a surprise. People have used “game changer” a lot, but the game of figuring out what this election means and where it takes us seems to change daily, and some of that change depends on what we do. Why not seize history before it tramples us?
What if the recount Jill Stein and the Green party have initiated finds that Trump’s small, surprising lead in three swing states vanishes when the ballots are reviewed? What if Alexandra Chalupa’s report now on its way to Congress presents compelling evidence that the election was hacked? What if the election investigations Republican senator Lindsey Graham and others have asked for reveal corruption or collusion? What if someone (please) finally does some really solid work on investigating the numerous ties between the Trump campaign team and Russia and finds – well, shouldn’t we know what the influences and collaborations, if any, have been?
We are in a national emergency as an alarmingly incompetent and utterly amoral gang prepares to destroy the climate, human rights, the foreign policy positions the US has relied on for stability since the second world war, and more. You don’t have to love Clinton or Stein to see that this is a radical departure from where we have been.
A story that has haunted me for decades is about the equipment monitoring the ozone layer over the South Pole decades ago. The computer program was written to filter out improbable data and so missed the dramatic change in the atmosphere until the glitch in the program was eliminated. There’s a status quo bias at work in our mainstream media and too many of our organizations that normalizes the outrageous. There’s been a lot of talk about “normalizing” the Trump team’s players and agenda. We might also talk about normalizing astonishing news and enormous threats. News that should scream at us in six-inch-high letters on the front page is presented in a mumble inside: stuff like the fact that we are running out of time to address catastrophic climate change, and also the Trump administration promises to sabotage all efforts to address climate change. We must not normalize catastrophe out of a desire to seem calm or moderate.
As the New York Times reported, nine days before the election Barack Obama used his communications system to tell Russian leader Vladimir Putin to stop meddling in the US election. “The White House confirmed in a statement on Wednesday that eight days before the presidential election, the United States ‘contacted the Russian government directly regarding malicious cyberactivity’ that was ‘targeting US state election-related systems’. It sent the message over a rarely used system: a hotline connecting the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers in both countries, which they had agreed three years ago could also be employed to deal with major cyberincidents,” the New York Times report said.
Advertisement
These kinds of stories raise questions so big no one seems to have asked them. Are we in the middle of a cyberwar? And did the Russians hack the election in ways that changed the outcome?
What does it mean that, as the Washington Post quietly reported after the election: “Russian government officials conferred with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said.”
There are no precedents for the situations we find ourselves in, which is why we need to think big about how to respond. I visited Japan after the great Tohuko earthquake of 2011. Many people died because they evacuated to the right height to escape tsunamis they remembered; they were drowned by a tsunami bigger than any in living memory. Extreme responses to extreme situations are appropriate.
This week Harvard professor and award-winning Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder issued cautions about surviving anti-democratic regimes. “Do not obey in advance,” he advised. “Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.” Anticipatory disobedience keeps open space for our power, our voices, and our rights. That’s part of what thinking big means, but in this moment it can mean more.
Regimes have been toppled by the daring whose daring manifested as the imagination to believe that things could be different, the confidence that we have the power to pursue those possibilities, and the courage to pursue them. These last few weeks I’ve been thinking about how what looked like small, feeble-looking efforts in eastern Europe grew and amassed over the years to topple a series of Soviet satellite regimes in 1989. The audacity, the courage, the vision of the people gathered around the Polish Solidarity movement, the musicians and theater people in Czechoslovakia, the religious and secular groups in East Germany: their spirit and actions shattered the eastern bloc of Soviet-aligned nations. In 2013, Ukrainians rose up and drove out Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt Russian-backed president.
We may need to be courageous and strategic as they were; we may need to be for years to come. But now we have an extraordinary opportunity to prevent the worst-case scenario now facing us or at the very least to weaken and marginalize and discredit an outrageous regime-in-waiting. The possibilities before us in this moment are like a series of open doors; as time passes, doors will slam shut behind us. There is no better time; there is no one else to seize the possibilities. It’s up to us, which means it’s up to you. Think big. And act. Everything depends on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/us-election-recount-trump-hacking
有SOROS等等的这些大财团，想要多少就有少，想要多快就有多快。
New Person
本站元老
- 注册
- 2003-08-26
- 消息
- 5,827
- 荣誉分数
- 1,349
- 声望点数
- 323
美国的大选越来越像个joke。本来大选应该是个挺严肃的事，可这次在表演大师TRUMP的影响下，两党候选人和50%的选民表演了一场大型的show。其他50%的选民和全世界人民看了一场精彩的戏。而且美国的政客们还乐此不彼，丝毫没有想改进的意思，看来4年后还有戏看。
相关推荐
