How Republicans Became Red

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/

Good little bit of recent history. How did color of socialism, rebellion, anger, blood and Satan become the designated color for Republicans in the US?

The Smithsonian assures us it was a complete ACCIDENT!

Early in the article they state the obvious ...

“For years, both parties would do red and blue maps, but they always made the other guys red,” said Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News. “During the Cold War, who wanted to be red?”
Indeed, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union little more than two decades ago, “red was a term of derision,” noted Mitchell Stephens, a New York University professor of journalism and author of A History of News.

Yes, and blue is the color of water, cool, calm, the Union Army, the sky, etc.-- and it is the most popular color, with 40% of men prefering it and 30% of women -- oh, and only about 10% of each prefer red. I'm CERTAIN that the choice of red for Republicans was PURELY because their name starts with an "R" -- I mean if that was the reason why would you not make the Democrats "Dirt Brown"? 

BTW, if you go look at the color selections, blue and GREEN would be the obvious choices!

Why the Smithsonian -- the museum of the Deep / Administrative State even finds us an EXPERT to verify that it really makes no difference! 

Sara Quinn, a visual journalist now at the Poynter Institute in Florida, said she sees no particular advantage to either color.
“Red is usually very warm and it comes forward to the eye. Blue tends to be a recessive color, but a calming color,” she said.

You know, such things have a tendency to raise a red flag for me! 

Imagining A Two Party State, Russia Investigation Version

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats

"The Hill" is left-center bias -- about as good as one gets in major outlets in BOistan these days ... NPR is about the same.

The article provides a good scorecard of the DOCUMENTED Clinton / DNC involvement with Russia both before and during the 2016 campaign, including millions of $$ going to the "Clinton Fund" (funds ... for Clintons!). This is their summary:

There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns. 

And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians. 

It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.

"It would seem" ... well, yes, in a nation not ruled by a single party by virtue of the entire Administrative / Deep State being in the hands of "The Party" (TP-D).

Unfortunately, we don't live in that state, but rather in BOistan, where anyone not a D that is elected is saddled with being "under investigation" the entire time they were in office -- a policy of TP that started with Watergate, moved to Iran Contra under Reagan AND HW Bush, and continued with "Valerie Plame", 911, and other investigations of W Bush.

Once we went from being "One Nation, Under God" to being "A Tribal Mess, Under TP", articles like this OCCASIONALLY  get written from the State controlled media, but they are virtually unknown.

They are part of the fig leaf that lets the sheeple claim we have a "democracy".