Slashdot Mirror

it may also be used to track who is going to a political rally or protest, or who is visiting a dissident.

This would've been a valid concern, if being a "dissident" were in any way dangerous in our country. And it is not.

Certainly not lately — on the contrary, supporting the elected President or the majority-holding Party is what can get you beaten up or reported to your employer (and subsequently fired).

Dissidents in the US denounce the sitting President to the ovations from audiences, fearing not one bit neither for personal safety nor for job-prospects.

So, no, any concern over police identifying "dissidents" in a free country is invalid. But helping the officers separate known rioters from peaceful — even if excited — protesters is a useful thing.

Oh, was that [washingtonpost.com] what [thedailybeast.com] you wanted?

Yes, something like that, except targeting not a particular person (like Obama), but "all the vile evil non-believers and sinners who have either actively or passively decided to follow Satan".

Because wishing ill to a particular person — including President of the US — is really old shtick.

while deliberately failing to consider that the prayers in question were for the misery and suffering of others.

The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. They are still merely prayers. Words. Not actions. Not even calls for actions, which is what the Illiberals are doing.

Whish is worse — praying for suffering of political opponents (if indeed such praying takes place at all), or causing the suffering of political opponents?

You need to sit back

OMG, a wanna-be anonymous troll teaches me, how to troll properly?..

Getting thrown off a flight once was not enough for you?

You vastly over-estimate Clinton's influence and power.

The press was by and large in the tank for Clinton. Whether it was newspaper owners holding fundraisers for her (Washington Post), or sending her releases of stories about her in advance for approval (Politico/New York Times), or sending her debate questions (CNN), the press in this country has demonstrated that they are not trustworthy to deliver unbiased news. These are only a few examples I can think off the top of my head. I'm sure the same shenanigans would have gone on even if Trump wasn't the GOP nominee.

You know you were lied to, right? http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/p...

What speech codes? Like treating people with respect? And which words or phrases are now criminalized?

Not using people's "right" pronouns could get you fined in NY
In Canada it's basically illegal to insult anyone or say or do something they don't like: "A teenager was later arrested for growling and woofing at two Labrador dogs in public, a café owner was investigated for showing biblical passages on a TV screen, and an LGBT group was arrested under section 5 for protesting anti-gay persecution in the Middle East. While one would hope such a law would only be used in extraordinary circumstances, it's actually very common."
40% of millenials are OK with making "offensive" speech illegal
The overwhelming majority of college staff are leftists and colleges overwhelmingly limit speech on campus
EU is banning anything that is politically sensitive: "To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, hate speech means just what those in power choose it to mean – neither more nor less. And now, continent-wide censorship has been forced upon us by the powerful, and they will decide what the rest of us can and cannot say and can and cannot hear, all with the aim of dictating what we can and cannot think."

I could go on...

Interesting links, but I don't see how it constitutes a "big lie". The Gallup blog's title seems strikingly sensationalistic—especially considering it's from the Gallup CEO.

Maybe, this explanation will help you understand, what Gallup's CEO was trying to say. In particular (emphasis mine):

if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed

and:

Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or health care worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work a week and are paid at least $20 you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much reported 5.6 percent.

But, hey, maybe, the government has always counted things this way — and Obama is simply continuing the misleading practice?

No, employees of the Census Bureau were actually faking data, and the Bureau knew it.

The lesson here is that no one should be trusted with statements, that benefit him. When there is a conflict of interest — be it a President lauding his achievements, a Climate Scientist defending his discipline's grave importance to humanity, or a salesman hawking his product, the spin and "alternative facts" are the matter of course.

No one in the world has more influence in the Balkans and Ukraine than Bill Clinton.

Can't speak for the Balkans, but that is certainly not true about Ukraine. McCain has influence there — he knows Russians since his youth. Biden does — his son has sizeable investments there. Obama and Trump do — for their own obvious reasons.

But Clinton?..

he was an excellent president and he managed to settle a complex region that could have ended up like Iraq is now, if someone less competent had been in charge

The difference with Iraq may be more due to differences between Iraqis and Yugoslavs — and their respective neighborhoods — than that between Bush and Clinton.

The biggest impediment to reaching that goal would be Bill/Hillary in power again.

Really? You mean, the Hillary of the "Reset" fame? The Hillary, that was on his payroll for years? The Hillary, whose e-mails his staff has been accessing more reliably, than weather forecasts? That Hillary?..

Nowhere in the article does the paper say THEY think it's aliens.

I'm sure the Russian government recruits computer talent in the many ways listed in the article. I would suspect the U.S. government does much the same.

The fake part comes in: Why publish this piece now? Why not, say, during the massive OPM breach?

Simple: Publishing it during the OPM breach would have harmed Obama, whom the New York Times and it's employees almost universally adore, while publishing it now helps prop up the false narrative that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not a disgruntled Democratic Party insider, and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the New York Times and it's employees almost universally loath.

Remember, among the revelations to come out just after the election were how the Times abandoned objectivity to go after Trump and how the entire newsroom is dedicated to driving a predetermined narrative rather than carrying out an objective search for truth.

This story was published because it fits an (unproven and probably false) narrative that Russia "hacked the election" because it theoretically harms Trump.

Further reading here and here.

The screenwriter's story.

She made the remarks in a private donors-only dinner on Thursday. She called it a "personal beef" if you want to find sources yourself, there are plenty of them. This is a good non-biased one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/yelp-extortion/

http://nypost.com/2014/10/13/restaurant-fights-yelps-alleged-extortion/

https://www.facebook.com/YelpExtortion/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046136/Is-Yelp-scared-bad-review-Company-defensive-filmmaker-nears-completion-documentary-exposing-website-s-extortion-small-businesses.html

And 126,000 other results on Google from a search for "Yelp extortion." Took all of 0.50 seconds.

right now he's doing a god damn victory tour, who does that?

Obama. You don't see it because you're a blind partisan, and only see things wrong in 'the other.' https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Really? Trump was claiming election rigging for months, and Bernie's failure proved it in the Dem nomination race, because of Clinton's "super delegates". Clinton and her sock puppets in the media and entertainment were so sure that she would win they denied any meaningful rigging existed. Hillary said that refusing to accept the election results was "horrifying", and "un-democratic and un-American". Refusing to accepts the results now is not those things, especially since she only collected 232 electoral college votes? She'd need to steal 68 votes from Trump to reverse the election, an impossibility.

It was only AFTER they lost that they started making claims about hacking and the ridiculous claim of Russian interference, and about "fake news sites". Before he won they were laughing at him and mocking him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Democrats revealed a 2005 audio tape about Trump and pussy grabbing. Here is a 2006 audio of Hillary proposing election rigging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And this is to say nothing of her claims to have landed in Bosnia "under fire", or that the Benghazi debacle was caused by a YouTube video, that she was related to Sir Edmond Hillary ... the absurd lies go on and on. http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/h... and that doesn't cover the lies she told this year!
The fake news sites are the ones that repeated Hillary's lies without bothering to verify her statements before publishing them.

Jill Stein, candidate that drew less than 1% of the popular vote, has no standing to demand a recount in any state.
Then she raises $6M to fight the results? According to Hillary she's horrifying, un-democratic and un-American for refusing to accept the results of the election. Clinton won Nevada by less than 27K votes, Colorado by less than 75K votes, Minnesota, by less than 44K votes and in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton won by less than 3,000 votes. If she is interested in merely "verifying" the results why doesn't she want a recount in those states as well?

The facts are that Clinton would need 68 electoral votes to switch the results of election night. That big a shift has never happened and would never happen, not even this time. The Left's real purpose is to either corrupt the Electoral College with intimidation and death threats, or throw the election into the House by making it impossible for the Electoral College to function on December 19th, and you know it.. They still wouldn't win because the House is now controlled by the Republicans, but then the "Progressives" will claim that Trump stole the election and create chaos in the country, even worse than their Media Matters puppets have orchestrated with the SJWs and BLM since the election.

How do we know this is true? It could be FAKE

Or they could be lying, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, that buried white kids getting racially harassed over Trump's victory.

Of course, "reputable" news outlets like the NY Times and the Washington Post ran with that FAKE news.

Report buried Trump-related ‘hate crimes’ against white kids

At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after Donald Trump was elected president. But the group that surveyed the teachers didn’t publish the results in its report on Trump-related “hate crimes.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, which formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, to circulate the questionnaire among its 1.6 million mostly Democratic members. The survey was sent out to K-12 teachers and administrators who subscribe to its “Teaching Tolerance” newsletter.

The SPLC’s widely cited report — “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools” — reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.”

The takeaway was that Trump-supporting white kids have been harassing minorities at the nation’s schools. And SPLC’s schools report, along with a broader report on alleged Trump-inspired hate crimes — “Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election” — sparked breathless coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major media.

The reports also triggered a statement Friday from the US Commission on Civil Rights, which expressed “deep concern” that “prejudice has reared its ugly head in public elementary and secondary schools.” The panel called for more federal funding to prosecute “hate crimes.”

But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”

that hacking election websites using foreign government hackers

Spoiler: Most, if not all states make available voter info, some even for free online. It tends to be useful when doing targeted mailings or door to door knocks.

and using that data to forge absentee ballots in swing states is espionage.

And where is the evidence of that specific claim? Or is it the Russians are so advanced... they didn't bother to go the route you suggest, but instead may have tried to forge evidence of some tampering: http://nypost.com/2016/10/21/r...

What part of Trump lost by 2 million votes do your Ruskies not understand?

What part of 'the popular vote is utterly irrelevant when it comes to presidential elections' do you cry babies not understand? I'm sure if Russian hackers were actually involved in a scheme like what you suggest, they would understand the system a tad better than you (at least) so as to know how/where to target for maximum effect.

Yea, because if you read it on Google it must be true. Like renaming Trump Tower to Dump Tower.

A dubious news source, the Washington Times, seems to have conflated the two.

Says who? I'll note that there's similar stuff like that from from other sources:

Fox News reported Friday that at least one of Clintonâ(TM)s emails included sensitive information on spies.

âoeIt takes a very conscious effort to move a classified email or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clintonâ(TM)s personal email account,â said Raymond Fournier, a veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent. âoeThatâ(TM)s no less than a two-conscious-step process.â

He says itâ(TM)s clear from some of the classified emails made public that someone on Clintonâ(TM)s staff essentially âoecut and pastedâ content from classified cables into the messages sent to her. The classified markings are gone, but the content is classified at the highest levels â" and so sensitive in nature that âoeit would have been obvious to Clinton.â Most likely the information was, in turn, emailed to her via NIPRNet.

No, not that NY Times. The NY Times that has to rededicate itself to honesty given its abysmal performance during the 2016 campaigns.

How about repeatedly bringing her maid into a SCIF so that she could monitor a secure fax machine? http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...

Has Twitter banned any of accounts calling for an assassination of the President-elect? For killing all White people? Obviously not.

You didn't actually read any of those links, did you? If you had, you'd discover that that most of the recent chatter around the #AssassinateTrump hashtag, for example, is comments like this:

1. Hello @gov @twitter @Support, why are you allowing #AssassinateTrump to trend? Why are you not banning people who use it as a threat?

If you look backwards in time, you'll see that the earlier tweets including the same hashtag seem to have a more humorous than hurtful intent:

1. If @realDonaldTrump becomes president due to you retards im moving to canada! #sixhereicome #assassinatetrump

Finally, the Twitter user you've linked to, @maymaymx, isn't exactly a bleeding-heart liberal either, as evidenced by the actual contents of his tweets, like this one:

1. Make Liberals Irelevant Again

...or...

1. White liberals on Election Night: THIS IS THE END OF THE WOOORRRLLLDD!!! White liberals two days later: Man the anarchists are overreacting.

Perhaps it might be a good time to review your own biases before you start calling-out the folks at Twitter on theirs.

The major media outlets went all into the tank for Hillary. The New York Times abandoned even a pretense of objectivity to editorialize against Trump on their front page. Wikileaks proved that CNN and the Washington Post (among others) actively colluded with the Clinton campaign against Trump.

And you know who this hurt most of all? Democrats. Because the MSM was so in the tank for Hillary, the Clinton campaign couldn't get the information it needed to make tactical choices on what money and effort to spend where. Wouldn't it have been more valuable for them to hear "Hey, Hillary may have a problem with previously Democratic blue collar voters in the rust belt" than "Campaign Inevitable is going to crush all puny obstacles between her and the White House! You go girl!"?

Instead they tried to drag the most corrupt candidate ever to run for President of the United States over the finish line, and now they wonder why no one trusts them anymore.

As long as you don't let your local right wing party under fund it then it'll be fantastic.

Yeah, those nasty right wing AmeriKKKan$ underfunding Britain's biggest ISP?..

made sure the funding was enough and it's pretty fantastic

With sufficient funding, government can make anything "fantastic". The point is, competing private companies inevitably offer even better service for the same money.

I've yet to meet a Canadian or Brit who makes under $300k/yr and would trade their Health care system for mine.

Maybe, you are hanging out with a healthier crowd. Canadians certainly do cross the Southern border for healthcare.

And while you complain about sabotage of government-provided services, American healthcare system is an example of government's sabotage of private industry. What, for example, is the reason, I can not purchase a health-insurance policy from a different state? Capitalism works, when there is competition — after eliminating/reducing it to the point of mono- or duopolies in each state, the Illiberal Statists will claim: "market failure"! And transform American health-care into a bigger and uglier version of the VA hospital system.

Maybe, you are a Socialist, who'd like the government to be in charge of everything. But if you aren't, then I'm at a loss as to why you'd want them to take over the Internet-service provision and health-care, but not, for example, food-distribution or automobile-production.

Being "private company" is, obviously, not enough of a defense, as Facebook just found out the hard way, for example. Evidently, some violent hate-groups — such as BLM and the rest of the "anti-Trump" crowd — are more equal than others.

Has Twitter banned any of accounts calling for an assassination of the President-elect? For killing all White people? Obviously not.

But, hey, it is a private company... Maybe. A good illustration on why "hate speech" must remain legal — because any enforcer will be just as biased as Twitter is proving themselves to be.

Which itself seems like WPs desperate attempt to /spin/ what was simply a letter from the NYT. Who gives a shit what Trump said or tweeted about it, when you can RTFL yourself?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
"...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. ..."

Notice the words "REdedicate" and "honestly"?

That's pretty fecking clearly an apologia, recognizing that any pretense of objectivity was abandoned in this season.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/n... was quite clear on what that letter meant.

Trump is a traitor to the US, beyond business dealings in Russia that compromise his judgement

Are you equally critical of the Clintons and their business dealings with Russia? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

he has already backed Russian interference in the democratic process that is the foundation of the US

Are you equally critical of the Obama administration's interference in the internal politics of Ukraine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Putin will attack the US unless he is killed or overthrown first

Please describe the Operational Plan/Scheme of Maneuver that you anticipate for Putin's attack on the US. Cyber attack? Strategic bombers? Nuclear weapons?If you are going to make such an accusation, you must foresee some "End State" that Putin would expect to accomplish. What is his objective with a direct confrontation, by your estimation?

Right now Russia has its hands full with its Air Force operating in Syria and its Little Green Men operating in Novorussia/Eastern Ukraine. It's a country of ~130 million with a shaky economy and a military that is only partly through a period of modernization....a modernization that has been rudely interrupted by low oil prices and Western sanctions. They're not really in a position to go on the offensive against what remains the most powerful conventional military on the planet by far. And maybe you missed the part where Putin stated he was willing to talk about resetting/normalizing relations with the US, now that the Neocon Hillary isn't likely to be the Commander-in-Chief: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/p...

Nothing?? Among other things, Hillary gave her maid access to a SCIF so that the maid could monitor the secure fax machine for her!! Just for this alone, anyone else would have been prosecuted. To my knowledge, the FBI reported this only about a week before the election, but it was only barely covered by the press (google search site:cnn.com "hillary" "maid" pulls up nothing relevant). This should have been reported as a bombshell. http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...

“Why would you think there would be fake news on one side and not on the other?”

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/z...

You just elected a Russian mole.

Sure. Because Kremlin says so... Except, they don't even claim that... It is all a product of hypotheses, suggestions, and unsubstantiated — usually anonymous — claims.

Meanwhile, a few facts about Clinton's recent past:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine (and, correspondingly, to Syria).
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset".
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

The only thing, that can be done to address the above accusations by your kind is down-modding them — facts are stubborn. So, apply some Vaseline, charge your Prius and head for Canada as you promised.

The Beautiful Wickedness finally had some water splashed on her, and us, the deplorable munchkins, are rejoicing.

I said that Newsweek's analysis does not appear to have included that document, not the FBI's. I do not have any reason to believe that Newsweek had early access to Wikileaks, nor was it mentioned in their analysis. Frankly, they're a bit slow to catch up with the times. For a bit of humor about that, see also: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/n...

I've explained separately why I don't think the FBI will charge her: it would be pointless. So they came up with a self-contradictory statement about why they didn't file charges and simply explained what they found.

1) You're telling me the Secretary of State didn't think she'd be getting classified e-mails to her server?

2) You mean like the maid?

You guys have it all wrong.

They shouldn't be on ANY non-secure systems which includes ANYTHING connected to the Internet, including the State Department's non-classified email accounts. They shouldn't have even been typed on those state dept. systems in the first place.

Those are the rules, but when theory meets practice, it gets complicated.

1) You're telling me the Secretary of State didn't think she'd be getting classified e-mails to her server?

2) You mean like the maid?

You know, the one who printed out all those classified e-mails for Hillary and others to read. Is she exhonerated as well? I mean, we already know that Weiner is cleared, even though he had a laptop full of classified e-mails from Hillary and his wife...

Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials

Don't forget the cleaning lady that was asked to print out e-mails so clinton could read them:

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...

Putin wants Trump to be president.

Pathetic... Seriously... Are we supposed to believe, Trump will be better for Russia, than the alternative, who:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine.
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

You expect us to ignore all of the above and worry ourselves over "irregular pings" of a server with "Trump's name in it" originating from a Moscow bank?

Means more room for humans. We're succeeding as a species. I suspect it wont end well for us though.

I have no doubt that certain species are declining, but others are booming, and it's precisely because there's more humans. For instance, there's more deer, black bears, raccoons, and coyotes, just to name a few.

...

You may think Trump is the lesser of two evils, but make no mistake: Trump is no champion of civil liberties. If this is your reason for voting him, I suggest re-thinking about it.

Trump IS the lesser of two evils.

Trump MAY be as bad as Hillary with respect to civil liberties - but he pretty much CAN'T be worse.

And the media will at least try to keep Trump honest. The media has pretty clearly demonstrated that they won't do a damn thing to keep Hillary! honest.

Did you know Hillary! confidante Terry McAuliffe have the wife of the #2 FBI leader over half a million dollars just a few days after the FBI started investigating that email server that Hillary! "didn't have" - and that "didn't have classified data on it"?:

Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system, according to a report.

The political action committee of McAuliffe, the Clinton loyalist, gave $467,500 to the state Senate campaign of the wife of Andrew McCabe, who is now deputy director of the FBI, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The report states Jill McCabe received an additional $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, which is heavily influenced by McAuliffe.

The money directed by McAuliffe began flowing two months after the FBI investigation into Clinton began in July 2015. Around that time, the candidate’s husband was promoted from running the Washington field office for the FBI to the No. 3 position at the bureau.

Within a year, McCabe was promoted to deputy director, the second-highest position in the bureau.

How can anyone who can THINK not come to the conclustion that Hillary! is a much larger danger than Trump? She's ADMITTED that nothing she tells you means anything.

Yes we should save all our outrage and news of it until the day before it's due to be a problem

False dichotomy. No, it does not have to be "day before". A year or two before would do.

As things stand, though, we aren't at all certain, this particular one will ever be a problem — the stuff may remain buried in ice for eons. "Climate Science" and related alarmism (Peak Oil, anyone?) is rather notorious for unsuccessful predictions, while successful ones are rather hard to come by — people have tried...

To worry about what even the "proponents" say is decades ahead, one must really have dispensed with contemporary issues — such as, indeed, whether bogus accusations of sexual misconduct — and attempts to redefine unapproved kissing as assault — will allow a deceitful and crooked person become president this year.

She was not deemed negligent, but "extremely careless". That is the excuse Comey gave even after evidence was gathered as in similar cases. These are already prosecutions that have taken place and should show precedence to at least proceed to an indictment. So no she was not treated as others who have mishandled classified information. Even some of the FBI investigators are upset about this decision. Many references to this: example Gotta disagree with you on that one.

This case was already decided by the White House and on the tarmac of an Arizona airport.

That "Trump raped a 13 year old" story is so flimsy that just about every publication that's reported on it has since retracted the story. Which is why you had to go to Snopes for your source. It's been dismissed and refiled twice now, and Snopes statement isn't that it's true, it's that a civil suit was filed. Which is true but meaningless since anyone can file a civil suit for anything.

Meanwhile, there are multiple credible allegations that former President Bill Clinton has raped multiple women. And if you follow that Snopes story through, you'll see that Trump is only being sued for his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Who's Jeffrey Epstein? Well, he's a close associate of one William Clinton:

Visitors to his private Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," have included Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Stephen Hawking.

Flight logs show that from 2001 to 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's private plane, dubbed "The Lolita Express" by the press, 26 times. After Epstein's arrest in July 2006, federal tax records show Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation that year.

In 2003, New York magazine reported that Trump also attended a dinner party at Epstein's honoring Bill Clinton.

So what you've really demonstrated is that someone realized that the Clintons have a close association with a known pedophile who, as a New York socialite, threw parties Donald Trump had attended. Good job.

And Mashiki fails to note that they were doing so in order to track the process and thus improve their ability to make arrests.

You mean they were not tracking the process, ignoring informant information, and not doing any arrests. And according to the FOIA requests, the Obama administration went even further and blocked agents from actively perusing investigations against solid leads. Did not inform the Mexican government unlike the Bush administration did, illegally engaged in straw sale purchases, and in the end was so shitty that they "lost" thousands of weapons. Openly discussed and/or blocked ATF lab reports which showed that the weapons that the administration had approved for gunrunning were being used to commit crimes. Which came directly from Holder's office. And attempted to use "executive privilege" in order to block all information on it. Which of course is why it was such a big scandal...unless you watch the US news, in which case they simply brushed it off as nothing. Much like you did, and of course if all that had happened under a Republican president, you would be screaming from the rooftop right now.

But much like Yeland Lee(who was gunrunning as well FYI also a democrat), the only difference between the two is that no one in the Obama administration actually went to prison over it.

There seems to be another side to that story

A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity,

You know that that is misleading to the point of lying, right? The Clinton Foundation doesn't give much money to other charities, true. Instead it runs it's own charitable programs, and percentage-wise spends less on payroll and administrative employee expenses than most charities. I don't know if the CF is a wonderful charity or not, but it is spending money better than other charities. It's been under constant scrutiny by anti-Clinton folks for years; if they were shielding assets for the Clintons it would have come out. Instead, people just repeat the same lies as you did

In a sense, it does lower the Clinton's taxes, in the way that donating to any charity reduces your taxes. It also means that that money is no longer theirs, which is why most people don't give 10% of their income to charity. But nobody has demonstrated that the Clintons are particularly using the CF money on themselves. Maybe they are and nobody has found the evidence (unlike with Trump's foundation). Or maybe you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't?

Of course it shields assets. Why do you think it exists? Hillary's speech fees are paid to the foundation - this is public knowedlge. The foundation is nonprofit, this is on record. The reason for doing this is obvious: non-profits have tax advantages: she gets to keep more of her money, it's just kept in the nonprofit.

I'm not saying this is illegal - unfortunately, it is legal. It is a common way for rich people to avoid taxes.

As for whether or not the Clinton Foundation is "really" nonprofit, consider: A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity, Many times that amount when to payroll, employee benefits, travel and other expenses. You can find similar information from other sources, covering other years.

The Clinton Foundation is a legal organization, doing legal things. It's primary purpose is to provide a way for the Clintons to shield their money from taxes, and to provide salaries to their cronies. This kind of loophole exists, because taxes are for the little people.

he has eluded [sic] to the beating of ejected protesters as being acceptable several times on film

His opponents are all about violence. They openly advocate it. Trump's rally in Chicago had to be cancelled, because of the threats of violence. A US President better be ready to respond to violent threats with overwhelming violence of our own. The era of apologizing and paying off the little bullies is over.

Now, has Donald Trump used violence in personal matters? Evidently not...

was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same? Or suspecting that McCain or Ted Cruz may not be eligible either?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant . Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time (as are White juries) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association

Distinction without difference. Any attempts to promote people based on their race automatically discriminates against other races and is thus racist — by definition.

That's pretty much racist.

"Pretty much" does not count.

directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

So, he inherited a problem from his father. Big deal. Hillary Clinton's father was racist too

Except that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

Fail.

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends. . . . . None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends. . . . . None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses