Slashdot Mirror

> I rather suspect he won't release his tax records because he's the pot calling the kettle black.

He wont' release them because they would reveal that he's not a billionaire.

He wasted over a million dollars to lose a libel suit against a reporter who did a lot of research and came up with a number of about $200M. That guy, by the way, has seen his tax returns, but he's under court order not to talk about the specifics. He deserves a crowd-funding campaign to encourage him to violate that court order.

Trump certainly has assets that could be liberally valued at over a billion dollars. But he also has debt, upwards of half a billion in debt and he's added at least $50M just to finance his campaign.

You're changing the subject from candidates to the actions of angry activists.

Nope. The "angry activists" were the subject of your post. If they can organize themselves into a mob sufficiently threatening to warrant cancelling a major campaign event in a major city, alluding to roughing them up may not be particularly outrageous.

Tempers always flare in a run-up to elections. But Conservatives, for better or worse, are always behind Democrats' "rank-and-file" in violence (and you better pray, we stay that way). Heck, absent Conservatives to beat up, Democrats some times attack other Democrats. In this recent incident in Cleveland, for example, KKK, BLM, and Westboro Baptist "Church" — three Democratic Party outfits — have been reported as throwing urine at each other!

I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy

They certainly are a conspiracy, though, of course, not the "civilization-ending" kind. 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte, for example, were from other states — somebody organized them and paid their travel (and lodging) expenses.

Probably, the same body, that fanned the Ferguson killing of a thug trying to get to policeman's gun beyond all proportion — and popularized the "Hands up don't shoot" lie . Now, has Hillary Clinton been behind it? Maybe not. But she certainly did try to earn the thugs' support by soliciting endorsement of the deceased thug's mother.

> So Obama should have been investigated by his own FBI over this?

A sitting president telling a foreign leader that he will have more political manuevering room after an election is not even remotely like a candidate for president negotiating with a foreign leader against american interests.

You want comparisons of people who got "a pass?"
Reagan trying to delay Iran's hostage release to deny Carter the credit.
Nixon trying to delay the end of the vietnam war to deny LBJ the credit.

It is completely within the realm of the possible that Trump is conspiring with Putin to fuck over american efforts to defeat ISIS in order to deny credit to the democrats. And if he is doing that, we all deserve to know.

Quoted from Okian Warrior above:

Early this year, when Bernie raised $60 million and Clinton had raised only $20, the DNC moved $60 million in funds earmarked for local campaigns directly into Clinton's account.

Bernie and Clinton won popular votes by roughly the ratio of their campaign spending, so the extra $60 million made a huge difference.

Bernie had momentum at the time, and would have outspent Clinton 3-to-1 in political ads. The extra advertizing would have very likely won him many of the early state primaries, and would have likely won him the national primary as a result.

Moving the money as they did is almost certainly a violation of federal election law, likely a violation of money-laundering law, and goes completely against any sense of neutrality in the DNC towards candidates. (Additionally, they short-sheeted all the local campaigns, giving republicans an edge in many areas.)

Trump hasn't said straight up that he will nuke people - but he's said a lot of things that indicates he's quick to consider it, enough so to make lots of former Republican White House officials so nervous they're backing Clinton and/or denouncing him. Things like "Why can't we use nukes?" to all of his talking about "bombing ISIS to hell" (because we're already bombing them heavily - what more does he want to do?) leave a lot of people very uneasy about it.

Trump has already shown, repeatedly, that he does not adhere to the accepted boundaries of behavior in a ridiculous number of things. He doesn't care about what our allies think. Or consider the following anecdote:

At a reception in New York City around 1990, he ran into the U.S. START negotiator, Ambassador Richard Burt. According to Burt, Trump expressed envy of Burt’s position and proceeded to offer advice on how best to cut a “terrific” deal with the Soviets. Trump told Burt to arrive late to the next negotiating session, walk into the room where his fuming counterpart sits waiting impatiently, remain standing and looking down at him, stick his finger into his chest and say “Fuck you!”

Citation: http://www.politico.com/magazi...

The rest of the article is worth a read, too.

But really what did the DNC do do Sanders (who was not a Democrat prior to trying to run for President as one)?

They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

Early this year, when Bernie raised $60 million and Clinton had raised only $20, the DNC moved $60 million in funds earmarked for local campaigns directly into Clinton's account.

Bernie and Clinton won popular votes by roughly the ratio of their campaign spending, so the extra $60 million made a huge difference.

Bernie had momentum at the time, and would have outspent Clinton 3-to-1 in political ads. The extra advertizing would have very likely won him many of the early state primaries, and would have likely won him the national primary as a result.

Moving the money as they did is almost certainly a violation of federal election law, likely a violation of money-laundering law, and goes completely against any sense of neutrality in the DNC towards candidates. (Additionally, they short-sheeted all the local campaigns, giving republicans an edge in many areas.)

Effectively, they took all the campaign contributions people gave to Bernie and wasted them.

And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

It's worth standing up and saying "no" to corruption.

The people who gave support to Bernie Sanders should not have had their efforts wasted due to cheating.

Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.

I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.

Is this the same Trump who specifically wants to limit free speech ?: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

Don't forget, DPRK state media has endorsed Donald J. Trump for president (this is not a joke).

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Except no, the court order included reasonable fees, which would have been paid by the FBI.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=...

Section 5 and 7. Did you honestly think no one could look up the court order and call you out on that?

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=...

Well, they made a recommendation, but left it open for Apple to counter offer with another method of getting the data.

We all know very well that the democratic process is lost to us - as anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders found out.

I voted for Sanders, and I'm sorry, your citation doesn't support what you claim. If anything, I would argue that Sanders's success proves it is possible to achieve change democratically, even if it won't be as easy as some hoped. Success? Yes, he did far better than anyone imagined he would, and he forced Clinton to address a number of his and his supporters' policies and priorities. Did we get everything we wanted? Of course not, but that's not how the real world works. Politics is almost never about sudden magic revolutionary things happening, it's slow and incremental - and when the sudden magic happens it doesn't come out of thin air, it comes because people spent a long hard time working on it, and put in blood, sweat, and tears, year after year.

It's the same sort of thinking that led to people being disappointed in Obama, as if he was going to sweep in and fix everything. That's not how it works. You build, and you push. Want more people like Sanders in office? Work to elect them, at all levels of government, not just the Presidency. Don't like politicians like Clinton? Then organize against and vote against them in the primary. Even if you don't beat them, most politicians are astute enough that they're going to shift their policies to cover intra-party blocs. Look at what happened to the Republicans with the Tea Party - there's no moderates left in Congress, and any that are basically terrified of being primary'd out, so they support all the ultraconservative positions.

And in the end, if your guy doesn't win, don't take your ball and go home - you vote for Clinton even if you don't like her, because 80% is better than 20% or 0%. We can complain that the system is bad (it is, in my opinion), but that doesn't change what the rules of the game are right now. We can also work to change those rules even while we continue to play by them.

We all know very well that the democratic process is lost to us - as anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders found out.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! Butthurt Berniebro detected.

That said, I don't think that justifies attacking the hospital electronically or physically; just through legal channels. But the hospital and courts were complete and utter pieces of shit in this case.

It's an interesting situation.

We've long bemoaned our inability to hold people accountable for their actions. Example after example of big, politically well-connected entities seem to get off scott free, and we the people are powerless to do anything about it, nor can we force the government to action.

(HSBC directors not being charged, Wells Fargo directors not being charged, Oracle paying $95 million in services restitution for wasting $240 million, and so on.)

Note that Justina's parents were issued a gag order that prevented them from talking about their problems, and it was only *after* her father broke the gag order that the situation received public attention.

Do we believe that the father should be prosecuted for breaking the gag order? He was justifiably concerned for his daughter's welfare. The hacker was also concerned, and wanted to send a message and perhaps prevent more abuse and tortures.

We all know very well that the democratic process is lost to us - as anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders found out.

How can we condemn the "last resort" actions of any individual trying to bring about just and proper changes?

Where do we draw the line?

Well, yeah. Don't you know how this works? In every election, the Republican candidate is Literally Hitler.

Except when it's the Republicans that are accusing Democrats of being LITERALLY HITLER.

Or at least, Goebbels. You may have forgotten.

Please take your protests to your own side first.

"Private sector insurance and healthcare"

Not quite exactly unlike that. Large scale healthcare in the US is a kludge (that's the nice word) of dozens of different, overlapping, often contradicting Federal, State, International (i.e., the World Health Organization), public (at other levels), private, public-private, for profit, not for profit, 501C3 corps (bog help me if I can figure them out organizations.

The crippled horse rolled out of the 'free market' barn in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare enabling act (actually first suggested by Harry Truman).

Bog knows what you'd call the current system other than an enormous clusterfuck.

(sorry for the parenthesis, In Seattle, too much coffee.)

What are the poison pills you are reffering to?

Democrats want direct funding for plan parenthood in the bill to help deal with Zika. Republicans don't want this, but would allow for states to allocate money as needed (including plan parenthood).

Democrats want this bill considered to be emergency funding, but Republicans have paid for part of the 1.1 billion dollar bill with 750 million from ~100 million of unused funds from Ebola and ~540 million from unused funds from the affordable health care act. The funds for the affordable health care act were unused because in some US territories it was not feasible to setup exchanges and they opted for additional medicare funding and so did not need the money to setup the exchanges.

So nothing really poisonous going on, just disagreement.

NNope. Republicans banned Planned Parenthood funding in Puerto Rico. But they've lost the image on it just like they did for the shutdowns, and no, nobody believes the crap about the Confederate flag belongs either.

Republicans tried to make a political grand-standing, and failed, they weren't doing anything but with lives.

Why do you expect the rest of us to fall for it? Why do you have so little regard for anyone else?

I know tons of people that would vote for Satan himself if he ran on the Democratic ticket.

This is not unique to the Democrats. The exact same statement is certainly true of most Republican voters

That's just not true of those thinking Republicans, unlike the sheep of the Democrats. I mean, if the Republican nominee shot somebody, surely they would not vote for him.

Or maybe they would...

both Clinton and Gore wanted them outright banned.

I couldn't confirm that. Do you have a link?

Religious nuts were expunged from the party and conservative movement

Tea Party was full of them. If GOP tried to expunge them, they failed badly.

vaccines are ... protested mainly by left-wing groups.

Not: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Anyhow, there's always going to be wacky positions on both ends of the spectrum. The extremes don't tell us very much.

It was actually a rhetorical question. We know for a fact who is doing it, and why. Yes, they are in fact Pro-Trump. They are also anti-US, and in particular anti-NATO. However, they've also hacked the RNC, and even in the DNC hack were particularly interested in their oppo research on Trump. The fact that they haven't publicly released that info they gathered just tells you they plan on using it privately, but don't want to hurt them publicly.

The fact that I can ask a rhetorical question with a well-known answer, and an answer with multiple possibilities listed got modded insightful, tells you everything you need to know about the ignorance of the mods here on /. lately.

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt

Your complaint is highly amusing since you ignore how Trump wants to abuse libel laws to shut down reporting he doesn't like.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

So, yes, if I have to choose I would pick Hillary over Herr Trump.

As a Venezuelan that has lost nearly 20 pounds in less than 9 months due to food being scarce and expensive, i laugh every time someone in the US see similarities between Obama and Chavez, or call Obama "socialist".

IMHO there are more similarities between Chavez and Trump.

Jeb Bush spent $150 million on a primary race with tons of ad buys and campaigning goodness that money could buy and came in nearly dead last.

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

Money gets your message out but it doesn't mean that it will automatically translate into votes.

If that were the case the new Ghostbusters movie should be the highest grossing movie of all time.

Now it does represent a barrier to entry for candidates without the money/support networks - But - here's a perfect example where one man with the means can fund another with the vision. What if he had spent that much on Bernie's campaign instead?

If I'm worried about someone's medical condition, its the guy who's refused to release his records at all, outside of a ridiculously worded one-paragraph statement that the signing doctor says laughs about which reads *exactly* like the language used the said guy's own off-the-cuff speeches. Same vocabulary, same mannerisms. This is so over the top, it's really hard to escape the impression he's trying desperately to hide something.

Trump is 70. That would be the oldest elected POTUS ever (and older than his opponent), and we literally have no real idea about the state of his health. All we can do is eyeball the guy, and frankly he doesn't exactly look like a healthy 70yo. My doctor has me on beta meds and is trying to get me to lose weight, and Trump's got 40 years and easily 20 pounds on me. As someone nearing 50, I can guarantee you that there is just flat out no way a doctor looks over that person at age 70 and isn't at least on his case to drop weight.

If you're a person who honestly thinks nebulous future concerns about a candidate's health are a good voting issue, then you flat out must be more concerned about Trump than Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

"In the new set of about 1,700 messages, an additional 23 emails were classified at the middle tier, “secret,” bringing the total number of “secret” messages to 65, according to a State Department tally. In the latest, final batch, 238 messages were deemed “confidential,” lifting that total to 2,028, an official said."

I love how people hide stuff like this at -1 because they don't want to hear it...

The fraud was related to evading campaign finance laws, not Bernie: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

What they did to Bernie wasn't fraud, at least not in the legal sense, just a slap in the face to those in the dem voter base who thought their party's candidate would be determined by a fair and democratic process. Of course the DNC, as a private entity, is free to hand-pick their candidate and skip the entire primary process - as they used to long ago - but decades of at least the illusion of democracy has led people to expect something vastly different.

I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.

And did that "extreme carelessness" result in confidential information being destroyed or delivered to people in violation of trust?

Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody

Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If not, then she violated that statute through gross negligence at minimum.

One, we don't know what/if anything was stolen, we just know that there was at least one successful login to the server via Tor on a user account where the owner claimed no knowledge of the software: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Two, Clinton did not do the reasonable thing in the setting up of the server, nor recognizing classified information, nor allowing her aids to re-handle the information in rather careless ways, so by your very own logic, she should be held criminally responsible for her actions.

You're correct, that's why they used that server for non-governmental emails.

Thank you for conceding the underlying point, little you say beyond changes this basic fact.

So why did they use that server for governmental emails?

Dunno, I wasn't part of the administration.

And why, when they were being investigated,

Because at the time the Democrats were investigating everything under the sun in the administration.

did they announce that they "lost" 22 million of the emails on that server? (These facts were mentioned in the article that you claimed the GP didn't read. I recommend reading more than just the intro next time.)

Because as a non-government server, it isn't likely to have the same sort of retention mechanisms in place.

The Bush administration did the same thing as Clinton did.

False. Clinton setup the email server to skirt FOIA requests (ie break the law), the Bush administration did to avoid violating the Hatch Act.

It's just as terrible in either case.

How much classified information traversed the gwb43 server? We know know that at least one account on Clinton's server was breached: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Want to make up some more false equivalences?

The main difference is that the people who are convinced that this act makes Hillary evil are also convinced (like you) that Bush's actions were no big deal.

You again ignore the underlying intent of both operations, one was clearly criminal without mountains of evidence disproving every claim (never sent or received classified emails, etc), the other was not.

1) The Department of Homeland Security wants to secure our elections for us, aka power grab.

That's a pretty bad article that strains credibility. It's an article about and an interview with the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, who thinks there's no danger, and because there's no danger, a power grab is the only plausible explanation. She says:

“It seems like now it’s just the D.C. media and the bureaucrats, because of the DNC getting hacked — they now think our whole system is on the verge of disaster because some Russian’s going to tap into the voting system,” Kemp, a Republican, told POLITICO in an interview. “And that’s just not — I mean, anything is possible, but it is not probable at all, the way our systems are set up.”

Oh it's not? Really? We've been warning for years about shitty voting systems that even a monkey can hack. We still hear about Internet Voting being pushed despite it being the worst idea ever. China has owned nearly every multinational corporation out there, and we have reason to suspect Russian involvement in the DNC hack. But oh, no one outside the country would dare mess with our Presidential elections! Of course not!

I thought Republicans were the ones who were extremely interested in the idea of securing elections. Boy oh boy, it seems like we just have to totally change our story when Clinton or Obama are involved. Or maybe they only in favor of election security when that security has the side-effect of putting hurdles in the way of poor people voting?

There are two things we are being prepared for:

1) The Department of Homeland Security wants to secure our elections for us, aka power grab.
2) The leaks are being discredited with the suggestion that the Russians are modifying or fabricating the documents, aka cover up.

It's 'kinda worse than that.

Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department

We already knew that Hillary was using her private email server for work, and that some of that information was classified.

So what is the shocking new scandal? That the previous secretary of state emailed information to an official at the state department?

, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

FTA,
"At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”

So yeah, gimmie a call when they find evidence that something was deleted because it contained incriminating info, and not because some dumbass lawyer a) thought it was a good idea, and b) sucked at it.

Or at least let me know when they know it's not a duplicate.

(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

Yeah! The media is notoriously easy on Clinton!

Did you actually read the Mother Jones analysis instead of looking at their rebuttal as evidence of media bias?

The whole "scandal" is around the fact that Bill Clinton still does stuff in his capacity as ex-President. This takes some money, not a lot of money, but because it's considered to be in the national interest the federal government gives him funds to do this, ~$100k.

It would be kinda stupid to bring in a whole different set of staff just because you spend a few hours doing ex-President stuff inbetween Clinton foundation stuff, so he just has the same staff work for the government instead of the foundation for that period.

I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise. A bigger scandal would have been if he paid the staff for an ex-Presidential event using Clinton Foundation funds!

Guccifer exposes Hillary's illegal email server and goes to jail for it.

Hilary gets off Scott Free.

BTW, Comey said "Leeeeave Hillary Alllloneeee" because there were more appropriate administrative punishments available.

And? What were they? Were the ever applied?

It's 'kinda worse than that.

Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

Nothing to see here, no smoking gun. She wasn't indicted, so let's leave her alone.

The problem with this argument is the FBI's report does not say it was only a sentence or two. It says there were thousands of classified emails, some of which were entire classified documents, markings and all.

No, it didn't. At least Comey's summary says nothing of the sort.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were âoeup-classifiedâ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

And...

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been âoeup-classified.â

Finally...

"Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

So flat out, unless you are in possession of a different report that indicates Comey made up the summary in whole cloth, you're being dishonest in your claims.

An insightful read: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-forgotten-1957-trial-that-explains-our-countrys-bizarre-whistleblower-laws-213771

Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups.

No sir, they were not.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us...
No intent, kept records in house, but with knowledge (which Hillary should have had...she went through the briefs).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Tried to bring attention to a perceived illegal activity, prosecuted anyways.

http://www.politico.com/story/...
Sailor took some photos for posterity of his workplace, he seems to have had no clue it was even an issue until he was charged with holding classified information.

http://pilotonline.com/news/mi...
No intent to distribute.

http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...

Of course, there is no case like Clinton's, even Powel never sent or received classified information. It is however gross negligence, and all of these above were the same.

The DNC has said that the next wikileaks dump will contain Russian lies. The propaganda machine has fired up its pre-crime unit.

What I've never quite understood is: what, specifically, bothers people about this email issue? The worst case scenario is, of course, that one or more of the deleted emails shows some sort of criminal activity (separate from the act of having an unauthorized email server, that is-- granting, arguendo that having such an email server is in fact illegal). Nothing I've read has suggested that such an email has been found, or exists. Absent that, then the most it shows, as far as I can see, is that she felt she was above the rules, that the rules applied to everyone else but not to her. That's bad, but I'm not sure it's worse than what most of us put up with from our managers every day.

I've read several stories about people emailing requests for access to Hillary, or to her staff; a prominent example was the Crown Prince of Bahrain ( http://www.politico.com/story/... ). Admitting up front that I don't really know that much about what the State Department does, or is supposed to do; but the crown prince of Bahrain sounds exactly like the sort of person who could access the State Department, who should get a response from the State Department. And, the linked story doesn't indicate any favors or quid pro quo, as far as I could tell.

Let's further grant (for the sake of argument) that she lied about what emails she had, what emails she released, what emails she deleted. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I have the impression that lying is half of a politician's job; just to get through the day; A necessary evil just to get anything accomplished.

So again, my question is: what, specifically, about this email issue bothers you?

It matters because the guy running one of the candidates' campaigns is a registered fucking agent of the government that's perpetrating the cyberattacks against us.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/15/...

And that candidate's daughter is besties with Vladimir Putin's girlfriend/sidepiece.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/15...

And that same candidate's platform was recently changed to be more friendly to Russia as opposed to our ally, Ukraine.

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

So that's why it matters who the DNC leak is. Because Donald Trump is a mole.

His call to have neutral observers at poll locations

You think he's calling for "neutral" observers?

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Note that the form to become one of these Trump observers takes you directly to a Trump fundraising site.

Now you have a bunch of activist judges making legal leaps and declaring Voter ID illegal not because it's against the Constitution, but because it "unfairly affects minorities".

It's not the voter ID that's against the Constitution, dumbshit. It's the "unfairly affects minorities" part.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontl...

You will notice that states that enacted these strict voter ID laws still allow absentee ballots. The Federal courts might not have decided against these states if Republican officials in those states didn't come out and flat admit that they were passing these laws to keep minorities from voting

http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

But I'm sure the new excuse for these statements is that they were being "sarcastic". That's what Republicans say now when they get their tongues caught in a zipper.

You drinking the lie that somehow the Republican party is represented by such tripe and that they cannot help it because they are somehow less intelligent than you.

Actually, I'm much more of an observer. You're just engendering the Koolaid pejoratives because I'm making you uncomfortable.

Out of 17 Presidential candidates in the 2016 race, Trump received 13,300,472 votes in the primary voting, His closest competitor was Ted Cruz, with 7,637,262 votes. This was a record number of votes, Surpassing both Romney and Bush 2.

Out of the 1,237 delegates needed to win, and 2,472 delegates total trump had a total of 1543, an overwhelming majority.

Out of the 50 states plus D of C there were only 12 that Trump did not win.

That is not just winning - it is overwhelmingly winning, with a record being set in the process.

Now since here we are in 2016 with conspiracy kooks claiming that we now have 50 people killed by the Clintons, allow us to touch on conspiracy, being germane to the topic.

Trump is a birther., and still claims it: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Trump has "suggested" that Hillary had Vincent Foster killed. https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Obama is a muslim

Rafael Cruz was involved in the JFK assassination,

He watched as Muslims celebrated in New Jesey when 9-11 happened.

He has literally dozens of conspiracy theories, and I "heard people talking" is no excuse. Its his way of saying "Not sayin', just sayin'. Sayin' is sayin', and if you can't say, don't say. He's sayin'

Donald Trump won the primaries overwhelmingly, setting a record in the process, and his campaign appearances have people cheering wildly for him in rapt attention. We can both watch them. Yet he does not represent the thoughts and minds of the party that nominated him to this position?

Well now, that is an interesting position. I'm really enjoyin' the dance here.

A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report:

New York times: invested majority stake by Carlos Slim with ties to obama and the Clinton foundation

The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

DNC analytics is Groundworks from GOOGLE

Still trying blame the russians when its clear wikileaks is telling you something here.

This whole story is a political hit job written by a fully compromised media outlet. Gerbil and Stalin would be proud of the American Media at this point.

Feel Free to visit independent media and see whats going on. Youtube:

Drudge Report

Redacted tonight

infowars.com

The Jimmy Dore show

Paul Joseph Watson

The Young Turks are going all in for Hillary, avoid them till they get their heads out of their behinds.

Trump wasn't calling for assassination

Right, that was Hillary.

First, FDR, the beloved Illiberal icon, still dizzy from success of gold-confiscation, gives us FCC — providing for AT&T phone monopoly among other niceties.

Then, in 60-80ies, they allowed local governments to regulate cable-TV providers — which suffocated competition. By the time of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed — increasing competition among its stated goals — it was too late. The cable-TV and telephone giants were already too big. Vast behemoths, they are too slow and unwieldy to go after each other, and too entrenched to be successfully challenged by newcomers. Their unwholesome relationships with local governments providing for the stagnation.

More recent attempts at regulation — such as "net neutrality" or minimum bandwidth requirements — are more of the same vein: helping the incumbents (who'll use their lobbying muscle and access to politicians to avoid any effects), while stifling competition.

Wait until the RNC completely collapses after the disaster Trump has brought to the party. Now he is saying that the election is going to be rigged. This casts doubt on the entire electoral process in the US. What a scumbag. He needs to quit to save himself from further embarrassment.

I dunno, looking at the way the DNC violated FEC rules in order to beat Sanders, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they paid to rig the elections.

Remember those Trump protestors? The ones starting fights at Trump rallies? DNC paid staffers.

Remember Trump making his hats in China? Complete and total fabrication.

Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews? Mostly made up.

The Democrats are spewing a deluge of lies and misdirection at Trump, because it's all they got. Trump beats Hillary on pretty-much every political position, and the voters know it.

Keep with the insults, we need the public to get tired of this and see it for what it really is: the last ditch efforts of a morally bankrupt campaign.

(Here's a good one that was top news yesterday: Trump having a conversation with the devil. Republicans should totally start throwing insults back at Clinton, because that's what the election is all about!)

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Trump is certainly a clever bastard, gotta give him that. Just like he knows how to play the "donate-to-politicians-to-get-policy-considerations" game in the US, he also knows if he wants to build a sea wall, it's helpful to mention "because climate change!" in his application, because the bureaucrats will eat that stuff up.

Approved!

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Every election is different, and with changing times each state also becomes very different.

Except that the electoral maps for 2008, 2012 and 2016 are nearly identical. The Democrats are starting off from a position of strength, and the Republicans are starting off from a position of weakness. McCain and Romney were weak candidates, but Trump is the weakest candidate ever. He might be another Zachary Taylor who sent the Whig Party in the 1848 election into the dustbin of history.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935

Get a solid Republican candidate who's not crazy then it's not inconceivable that California could be a red state, but this gets discounted because every thinks it's locked up and will never swap despite us having several Republican governors in recent history.

The California Republican Party has more in common with the endangered spotted owl than 1/10th of the U.S. population. The national Republican Party is destined to become a regional party in the South, if it doesn't return to the mainstream of America.

Don't forget the unwritten agreements between the cable companies not to expand their services into a competitors region

Such a collusion would be a major violation of the anti-trust laws. Not that I'd expect a President, who plays golf with cable CEOs to seriously prosecute their companies, but still...

There's a reason you basically never see cities with multiple big name cable options.

In my little town Comcast competes with FiOS rather vigorously...

Story explaining how Clinton teamed up with State DNC groups so the limits to an individual wouldn't limit the amounts raised, the aggregated group total became the limit. She then took all but 0.56% of it for herself and the national DNC. Of the $143 million raised this way, to avoid the individual limits using the different state people, she allowed the state people to keep $800,000 total.

She broke campaign finance law, remember this next time she brings it up as an issue.