Slashdot Mirror

The Dems could have won this election had they played fair and let Bernie beat her.

I doubt this. Bernie never would have gotten the minority support that HIllary was able to get.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...

Of course, I guess this NY Times article could be fake too :-)

Problem is, there were WMDs, the CIA bought some. Our troops suffered illness and injury from encountering them. So you can argue whether having WMDs was justification for the invasion, but pretending they weren't there is not realistic.

I don't credit Clinton with any special intellect in this area.

Maybe you should. This is her legacy. To the people who count, including HK, this matters a lot. And she still has this power.

Did you ever play "Balance of Power" back in the 80s/90s?

No, did you see how Brzezinski and Carter defeated the Soviet Union? What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Not that I agree really, but I would say Clinton was following through on that plan very well. And to tell the truth, I'm not sure if the thousand years of war between Europe and Russia is really over.

I don't like her, and would never vote for her (even less so, Trump), but there is something there... And it would be unwise to dismiss her out of hand.

Isn't fake news more useful to those already in power?

Who do you think's been in power for the past six years?

And look who's coming to power now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

Notice that this neo-Nazi konklave is taking place at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building in Washington D.C. "Heil Victory!"

What caused the several centuries long mega-droughts in California in the last 2000 years before Manmade Climate Change?

Previous California mega droughts coincided roughly with the medieval warm period and "caused the collapse of that continent's most advanced pre-Inca empire, the rich and powerful state of Tiwanaku". That warming coincides with a period of higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity - both natural factors that would cause warming. Man made global warming has driven modern temperatures well above the relatively high temperatures observed at that time - in spite of the fact the sun is now at its dimmest in a half century. If the droughts are in fact related to global temperatures then California ought to look at making some drastic changes to their water management. It's only going to get hotter from here.

What caused the several centuries long mega-droughts in California in the last 2000 years before Manmade Climate Change?

AGW/Climate Change is contributing, to be sure, but the last 150 years in California have been unusually wet. Centuries without appreciable rain are not rare for the region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

The drought, now in its fourth year, is by many measures the worst since the state began keeping records of temperature and precipitation in the 1800s. And with a population now close to 39 million and a thirsty, $50 billion agricultural industry, California has been affected more by this drought than by any previous one.

But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.

The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.

http://news.nationalgeographic...

"During the medieval period, there was over a century of drought in the Southwest and California. The past repeats itself," says Ingram, who is co-author of The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climate Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow. Indeed, Ingram believes the 20th century may have been a wet anomaly.

"None of this should be a surprise to anybody," agrees Celeste Cantu, general manager for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. "California is acting like California, and most of California is arid." (Related: "Behind California's January Wildfires: Dry Conditions, Stubborn Weather Pattern.")

Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries. That hasn't set water management on the right course to deal with long periods of dryness in the future.

Links or it didn't happen.

Seriously. Context is important.

"NYT reported Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly" - no it didn't, the NYT was foolish enough to repeat an anecdote from Kelly's own book, and you've spun that into "reporting Trump poisoned her". You are what this article is about. Fuckwad.

the same NY times who is now excusing pedophilia? I expect this from salon or huff po but no, even the times is now a pathetic joke http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10...

About half the stories in the "news" are about predictions of the future.

You think that because you're looking at fake news.

I have the paper New York Times right here in front of me from today, November 18. There are no stories "predicting the future", not even a weather report.

Here's the front page. See if you can find a "prediction of the future".

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/t...

In the last week...

NYT reported Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly and got debate questions before the debate. Their source, Mrs. Kelly, said neither was true. Looks like they made it up completely.

Unless I'm mistaken those come from a review of Megyn Kelly's book, here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

The excerpt about poisoning:

Her story becomes more byzantine. On the day of the debate, Ms. Kelly writes, she woke up feeling great. Then an overzealous, suspiciously enthusiastic driver picked her up to take her to the convention center. He insisted on getting her coffee, though she’d repeatedly declined his offer. Once it was in her hand, she drank it. And within 15 minutes, she was violently ill, vomiting so uncontrollably that it was unclear if she’d be able to help moderate that evening. It was so bad that she kept a trash pail beneath her desk throughout the debate, just in case.

Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.

About Trump getting the questions for the debate beforehand, they simply wrote:

Then, the day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.

She doesn’t speculate where the leak came from. (She reports. You decide.)

I have not read her book, but that was in the NYT review on November 10.

Maybe she refuted those claims somewhere besides in two separate Tweets, but I haven't found them yet.

For the record, my book "Settle for More" does not suggest Trump had any debate Qs in advance, nor do I believe that he did.

Also for the record, I believe the reason I got sick the day of the first debate was I contracted a stomach virus, just as Rand Paul did.

Even if the NYT played up those two anecdotes from her book, they didn't make it up completely.

When you go to a restaurant, if they screw up your order you'll probably still live.

That may be a reason to regulate doctors stricter. But it is not a reason to nationalize them...

And there is very little shopping around to be done especially because when it comes to life saving medicine or surgery time is a factor.

Of course, there is plenty of "shopping around" — or, rather, there can be. People even travel abroad for such procedures — they aren't all about "boob jobs" as someone claimed. Some times time is, indeed, of essence, but that's far from the norm. Except in an aftermath of an accident, it is, thankfully, very rare, that a person discovers, he must undergo a surgery within hours. Usually, surgeries and other procedures are scheduled in advance — indeed, long waits for such procedures is the number one complaint of Canadians. Having already paid for them with their taxes, they have little choice but to wait, but, if they were allowed to choose, some would've chosen different.

And that, really, is the bottom line — you can not (or rather, should not be allowed to) compel me into joining whatever health-care scheme you wish. No way, no how. It is my life, my body, and my money.

there are areas where profit motive is a detriment, where it actively impedes other more important motives such Quality.

Really? Why, then, is my healthcare so much better here, than it was in the worker's paradise called USSR?

Health care is one. Aircraft maintenance (both civil and military, and ive worked both) is another.

So, your argument is, any service, where bad quality may result in the consumer's death, should be nationalized?

Is government really a better guardian of quality of service provided by its monopoly, than competition among service-providers would be?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

Look at the vile hatred that was spewed from one side in particular.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

The vast majority of people on either side are completely peaceful. But when you look at the retoric that was spewed by one candidate in particular, it's not hard to see why people are angry.

Also, what happened to the whole "rigged election" thing? Seems like the ol' Trumpster clammed up on that subject right around November 8th, didn't he?

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

"The Coal Industry Isn't Coming Back" Nov-15 Opinion piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
tl;dr version: coal's problem isn't Obama, its Exxon-Mobile and natural gas, and coal is not going to win that fight

I still can't understand how environmentalists could be opposed to [nuclear power], if they truly believe what scientists are telling us about what's happening with AGW and what the long term effects may be.

Actually, environmentalists are on board when it comes to nuclear power, for the very reasons you mentioned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/en...

When have the democrats ever linked hands to deny every supreme court nominee?

I can't say that there is history of Democrats blocking every Supreme Court nominee. But the Democrats have a rich history of blocking nominees at all levels including Supreme Court, especially recently.

Here's a short overview. More specific links follow.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/democrats_double_standard_for_high_court_nominees.html

Samuel Alito was not filibustered but it was a close thing. Several prominent Democrats (including Senator Barack Obama) unsuccessfully voted for a filibuster despite Alito being rated "Well Qualified" by the American Bar Association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination

George W. Bush's nominees repeatedly were blocked in committee or filibustered.

"...only ten Bush appellate nominees were confirmed during the 110th Congress. A total of eleven appellate seats with Bush nominees were left open at the end of the 110th Congress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

Democrats blocked Priscilla Owen for four solid years (including filibustering). Senator Barack Obama personally voted against her.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261878/democrats-blocked-bush-judicial-nominee-entire-daniel-greenfield

The Democrats seem to really hate Trump, and I imagine that a majority of them will think it a virtuous act to block anyone he appoints. We'll see if I'm right or not.

Democrats are more like herding cats. Republicans are more like the Borg.

Democrats have reached a record for voting together: 97.4% This may be the all-time record, but easily searchable electronic records only go back to 1989 and the article linked below only checked the electronic records.

The Republicans currently are at 87.2%, a much lower number, but the article speculates that the Republicans will raise that number now that they have majority power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/upshot/barbara-boxer-and-the-rise-of-democratic-partisan-discipline.html

And here's an article called "Are Democrats Less 'Disciplined' than Republicans?" Spoiler: no.

http://themonkeycage.org/2011/10/are-democrats-less-disciplined-than-republicans/

Americans could bring manufacturing back home in a heartbeat but they need to be competitive. Foxconn employees make $17/day in China. American's could have it all: cheap gadgets and manufacturing jobs, They just need to be more realistic in terms of salaries. Trump's plan to get rid of the federal minimum wage will make America competitive again.

Apple's phone profit margin is about 40%.. So, they cannot absorb a doubling of the production cost without selling the phones at a loss.

This mean costs to consumers will go up. (They may go up even if Apple could in theory absorb the cost). This is why protectionism hurts: you bring back a few hundred factory jobs, but in exchange tens of millions of people are in effect poorer because they now have to pay more for their iPhones, meaning they have less to spend on other things, decreasing their effective wealth. The net social cost of doing this is drastically higher than the benefit of having the few factory jobs, because it impacts so many more people.

lol, you make me laugh amimojo. I don't think you intend to but you do and I don't know why. Thank you for that.

Anyway, 'context of immigrants ruining everything'. If you look at the exit polls you'll notice that immigration policy was an important issue to Trump voters (and some Clinton voters). I would argue that that includes the H1B visas in addition to border security. In Silicon Valley, there are some concerns that these programs and policies are not benefiting American citizens. (keyword citizen).

If a civic society is a society that works to benefit of its citizens by promoting the rights and duties of citizens, and if there are shortages of STEM workers, and if there is a problem with not enough higher education in STEM, and if there are problems with education; then perhaps maybe just maybe we should reassess these policies to be more civically oriented i.e. policies that promote citizens rights and duties. Civics as per Wikipedia is "the study of the rights and duties of citizenship."

Are those CEO's implementing policies that align with the rights and duties of citizenship if the previous conditions were true? Doesn't seem that way. If CEO's are taking advantage of the laws for a dollar at the citizens expense then they are undermining civic society. If a CEO has policies that do not promote the duties of a citizen, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO lobbies the congress for laws at the expense of citizens, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO is more concerned about foreign workers than local ones, they are undermining civic society. Disney, having citizens train foreign replacements undermine civic society. Again, civic society being a society for the rights and duties of citizens. You can be anti-civic and still be civil. Just because there maybe a group of 'un-civic' CEOs does not mean that they are 'not civil'.

I don't care if Bannon is racist and even Trump disagreed with him. There was some back and forth in the 'trail off' and if you can interpret that 'trail off' to mean exactly racism in his next statements then by golly good for you. In the mean time the issue at hand needs to be discussed without fear of racist labels from half statements so that we can have a more 'civic' society because if Sanders and Trump were to be believed then there are a lot of policies that are undermining 'civic' society.

Yea, that is why Trump got more of the Latino and black vote than Romney or McCain.

Surely they are not racist too?

Idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Could someone help this poor immigrant out? Are racial quotas a bad thing now? Just a few months ago, I was told, it is a very good and useful thing, but TFA seems to frown on it...

The polls going into the election had Hillary up 2-5% points

The NY Times had Hillary as an 85% chance to win the day before the election. But if you're going to pretend that the media was sure it was going to be a close race from the beginning when actually most of them ranged from "he's a clown" to "no chance" for the entire campaign, there really is no point in talking. The gods themselves argue in vain against fools.

I was sort of thinking the same thing. But realistically... Occam's razor leads me to the same probable conclusion as the Consumerist report.

It's not that this is new, either. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember the Sears auto repair scandal quite a few years ago? Same thing really.

Talk versus the left rioting. You can't see the difference?

Hate crimes against American Muslims have soared to their highest levels since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks

That's a hell of a weird definition of "talk" you've got there.

So you're just completely ignoring the Obama shooting targets that suddenly got popular both times he got elected, not to mention the people who actually hanged and burned his likeness hundreds of times, during the widespread protests?

A few 'interesting' news clips over the last two election cycles about violence targeted at people for their opinions:

A Thousand Oaks man got his finger bitten off by someone who didn't like the Anti-Obamacare Protesters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

Democrat tried to run down Republican with his car.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...

Left wing nut flies plain in to building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...
(interesting to note that he was 'originally' reported as a right-wing nut because... Texas. After his "note" was found, it was clear he was a left wing nut)

Man beaten and robbed by democrat thugs because he supports Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...

High school girl attacked for supporting Trump:
http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/11/vi...

To be fair, there were also these bits:

Muslim women in CA and LA attacked by Trump supporters.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
Oh wait... no witnesses or injuries -- and one admits to lying about it entirely and is going to be charged for filing a false police report.

Trump supporters paint "Die Blacks Die" during protest:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... (foxnews, but associated press provided).
Oh wait... it said "Die whites die". So silly of me.

How quickly people forget.

Yes... and how willingly they ignore what's under their nose...

And this guy, for that matter...

The NYT thinks you are full of shit. I do too.

I visited a lot of election results sites during the night of the election. The New York Times site was by far the best one.

They didn't project results based on exit polls. They projected it based on tallied votes. As each precinct reported its vote tally, it was added to that county's vote count. That was extrapolated to the number of precincts in the county to estimate how the entire county would vote. And the same was done for every county in the state to project how the state would vote. Statistical uncertainties were also calculated, and they had a nifty little confidence graph projecting which candidate was projected to win, how likely they were given the number of uncounted ballots, and what their estimated margin of victory was going to be.

This was a brilliant way to use computers to quickly crunch the overwhelming amount of election results data into a simple human-readable format. It takes all the guesswork out of it - CNN had pundits eyeballing which counties still waiting for precinct returns, and trying to predict the state's outcome based on just those few counties. They thought Pennsylvania might flip to Clinton because the urban areas around Philadelphia still had a large number of precincts not yet reported. But the NYT site showed that there were lots of rural counties which were breaking heavily for Trump yet to be counted. Each county on its own wasn't big enough in population to catch CNN's attention. But the NYT site showed that in total they would easily swamp out the uncounted urban vote, and Pennsylvania would remain Trump's.

With this system, any mis-predictions are simply sampling flukes - precincts with higher-than-average votes for Clinton or Trump just happened to report first. If the NYT continues this format, I will definitely be visiting their site in future elections.

Incidentally, even when 100% of precincts have reported their votes, the state cannot be called if the tally is close enough. There are still absentee ballots outstanding. Those have to be opened up and counted, and could conceivably flip a close election. That's why Michigan is still listed (at the time I'm writing this) as 92% likely to be won by Trump even though 100% of precincts have reported. Trump leads by 13,000 votes, and there are enough absentee ballots still waiting to be counted that statistically there's an 8% chance that they could flip the state to Clinton. Most live news stations don't bother accounting for absentee ballots because it just complicates things and rarely flips a state.

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.

throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century........move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.

Note that this is actually editorial content, not news.

It looks like maybe the Democrats have the issues. When you rig your primary to insure the candidate most hated by all conservative voters is guaranteed the nomination and then wonder why you lost that's called the issue of self delusion. No matter how bad Trump acted. No matter how rude and obnoxious. No matter what dirt was dug up on him. They still lost the election because they picked a bad, bad candidate and when an outsider challenged her they cheated and undercut him in any way they could. All so they could run the Queen. Well they ran her and Americans rejected her. The only people they have to blame are themselves. I'd be willing to bet there were hundred of other politicians they could have run with and won but they wanted the most corrupt one they could find that wasn't in jail at the moment.

I'm probably going to be modded into oblivion for pointing this out (wouldn't be the first time either) but Republican primaries process isn't exactly free of issues by any stretch of the imagination. The same goes for the Electoral College which allows the runner up who lost the election by 2 million bloody votes to become president. People keep telling me that the Electoral College is essential to US democracy and blah, blah, blah ... I call bullshit on all of it. The president should be elected by popular vote, period! Then there is the fucked up US electoral system riddled as it is with gerrymandering. I just heard a political analyst on TV recommend that the Dems. should put some effort back into state level politics. The implication of this person's advice seemed to be that if they did that, they could gerrymander the system back in their favour .... seriously?!?! By the looks of it practically every step of the US electoral process from the primaries onwards is in serious need of reform. It's easy for the Republicans to feel smug right about now, they control both houses of congress and they may or may not control the president (the jury is still out on that question). What they should be is worried because this victory they have scored is largely a victory achieved by gaming the system while demographics are slowly working against them. The fastest growing communities in the US are non-white while the Republican voter base is shrinking. If the Democrats spend the next few years rebuilding a grass roots organisation, realise that their most important base is not the Wall Street bankers and tech billionaires they spend most of their time sucking up to but working class white and non-white citizens. If the Democrats go back to their roots and draw some of those working class voters away from the likes of Trump with a Roosevelt style 'New Deal program' the Republicans will be in real trouble because endorsements form the KKK are not going to increase their appeal to that rapidly expanding group of non-white voters. In the end even expert gerrymandering will not be able to save the Republicans from their shrinking voter base. Only a move towards the political centre and away from KKK endorsements can do that. Say what you want, even if the Reps/Trump did not accept the KKK endorsement the mere fact that they got it is a very bad sign for the Reps. As for the Democrats there is an old Norse saying, "Don't mourn, gather men, arm yourselves and avenge" and that is my advice to them. Leave the Republicans to revel in their smugness and schadenfreude. Spend the next two years ousting the old Democrat establishment, bring in some new people, reform the primaries, take your party back to its core message and values and then kick the Reps. in the balls in 2018/2020 with a steel toe boot.

He is only "out" because gawker outed him.

That is not really true. From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...

Owen Thomas, the former editor of Valleywag who wrote the article about Mr. Thiel, offered his side of the story in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “As I’ve said before, I did not ‘out’ Peter Thiel,” said Mr. Thomas, now business editor at The San Francisco Chronicle. “I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle.

He was "out" it just wasn't a publicly discussed thing. Now, maybe you're trying to quibble with what "out" means... if you're trying to say that you're not "out" unless anybody with even a remote interest knows about it, and it's indexed by google, then I dispute that. By that definition, I'm not "out" as a heterosexual, which is retarded.

The key issue here is really that Peter Thiel did not consider himself a public figure whose private issues can be discussed on a public forum. I've certainly never heard of the guy before this issue came up, so he's definitely not as public a figure as, say, Hulk Hogan.

How does that make Peter Thiel a homophobe, any more than it makes Hulk Hogan a heterophobe for being "outed" on a sex tape? It just doesn't make sense.

You know - that's EXACTLY what people said about the original Hitler....
Here's the New York times in 1922 http://www.nytimes.com/times-i... declaring that all that talk of forced registrations and mass deportations and anti-semitism was just campaign bluster and he would never do it in real life if he ever got elected.

They were wrong.

I have no reason whatsoever to believe that YOU are any less wrong. If there is one thing I have learned it's that you can't believe a politician when he promises to do good - but when they promise to do evil, you better fucking believe they ALWAYS keep THOSE promises.

>by popular vote is it ? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>by popular vote
is it ? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

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...

A major expenditure for political campaigns is media buys—buying TV ads, for instance—but Trump was given billions of dollars in gratis TV coverage (1, 2). That's not "technology".

Trump was up against a horrible Democratic Party candidate who built on a long line of screwing the poor and ignored the lessons of Brexit. As corporate media lined up to bolster her, enough of the Trump voters' interests were left out. While she got busy calling them names (like being a "basket of deplorables") poor voters tried to make rent and feed their families. Every Trump jibe echoed around (such as the rubbish from news parody shows) without acknowledging what had been happening to the disenfranchised for 30 years under Democratic and Republican rule that Trump had nothing to do with setting up. Reacting to a bad economy with no end in sight had a lot more to do with Trump's victory than "technology".

And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated.

Please explain how the media were not honest here. You realize, don't you, that it was the media, the New York Times as a matter of fact, which first broke the story on Secratary Clinton's use of a private email server. And it was that very same media which went on and on about Clinton's email issues, right up until the very end of the campaign. According to Media Matters, using data from the Tyndall Report, reporting of Hillary Clinton's email issues eclipsed all other reporting combined on any other issue (100 minutes on emails vs 32 minutes for issue-based reporting).

Do you realize NYT is less credible than InfoWars?

Yep. Especially their poster child Paul Krugman. Claimed that the markets will never recover, then this happened.

resisted with military force.

Yeah, and take a wild guess who sold them the weapons.

Cry all you want about Trump's win. I revel in Clinton's loss. And now she can take Kissinger's place for the next 20 years at all those state dinners where real foreign policy is made. Trump will be calling her every night asking what to do next.

Russia and the US supply the rest of the world with most of their armaments. The linked graphic is a bit misleading because it omits "under the table" or "non-official" Russian arms sales.

Both countries do the same thing, on an income basis, at about the same percentage-level globally. For example, the price of a couple of top-end jet fighters (which require tons of maintenance documentation, and thus repair-parts orders) offsets the price of many, many plane-loads of off-the-books Kalashnikovs and RPGs, which are designed to require minimal maintenance.

It is not a secret.

Unrelated to this article but thought others would find this interesting. It's only one lobbyist's opinion but...

"The chamber already knows there are certain items Mr. Trump has said he will not support, like the current versions of trade deals with Asia or comprehensive changes in the nationâ(TM)s immigration laws, which the chamber pushed during Mr. Obamaâ(TM)s tenure. But there are aspects of each of these plans, like increasing the number of visas for highly skilled foreign workers, that Mr. Josten said he expects Mr. Trump to endorse."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/lobbyists-trump.html

resisted with military force.

Yeah, and take a wild guess who sold them the weapons.

Cry all you want about Trump's win. I revel in Clinton's loss. And now she can take Kissinger's place for the next 20 years at all those state dinners where real foreign policy is made. Trump will be calling her every night asking what to do next.

Hey now, don't sell Hillary short! She also sold out to the Russians for $100 million, so she's already proven she's for sale to the Russians AND to Goldman Sachs!

Even after you're candidate wins you continue to spread bullshit? The uranium deal was approved by nine separate US agencies. The State Department was only one of them. So no, Clinton could NOT have made a deal here of any kind, unless you believe in a government wide conspiracy. And if you do believe that, then how did Clinton lose the election when clearly she is so powerful that she could force nine separate government agencies to push through a corrupt deal?

Stop with the bullshit rhetoric, it serves no one but blah blah blah...

You stop with the bullshit rhetoric.

I have to say that I get a lot of liberal noise, but I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump is literally Hitler or is going to murder people.

Murder? Naw, he's still working on registering them.

"Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question."