Slashdot Mirror

That article says he has a beef against her, but doesn't say anything about Clinton interfering with a Russian election.

However, this article discusses Clinton, as secretary of state, protesting AFTER Their elections that the elections weren't fair. Which, is a legitimate criticism of human rights:
http://www.politico.com/story/...

I would say that most liberals know damn well that America influences elections and has basically installed leaders in many countries - from Chile to Iran. We don't like that.

But we also don't want a country with a worse human rights record than ours trying to get a demagogue elected who they know they can treat like a puppet - because the guy obviously has a slavic fetish and is weak-minded. But conservatives are eatin' in up. If that right there doesn't sum up both the amazing delusion of conservatives and the cognitive dissonance they constantly live in, I don't know what does.

I didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- but if you look at what actually happened, you don't need conspiracy theories to explain it.

But that's the thing, too many people on the Trump side are explaining it as...something it is not. That's what has come up here.

Hillary won the east and west coasts, very much as you might have expected. She won them big and that's the main reason for her overall popular vote win.

She lost in conservative states where you would expect that.

The pollsters and pundits misread the situation on the ground in states like Michigan, which they thought Hillary would win, but instead went over to Trump by fairly narrow margins.

Ah, you should look at some maps..

Pretty
pictures.
ok

This appears to be more to do with the economy, jobs, etc., than leaked emails and the like.

Well, it's not because they love Donald Trump. He's now not unfavorable by 2/3 of the country! That's soaring...to new lows.

Of course, all of this can be debated endlessly, but what is there about the election that really leads to a credible theory of manipulation, fraud, and hacking? The fact that Hillary lost is not exactly evidence.

You may or may not be disappointed with the outcome. You may or may not be happy that Trump will be president. But there certainly seems to be a fairly simple and fairly logical explanation for the outcome. That seems a lot stronger than conspiracy theories.

Bzzt, error, error. You're in the wrong section of the thread. This is the section of the thread where we're talking about how Trump's win is not a landslide, is not clearly showing how the American people are speaking, and ultimately how Trump's a lying braggart.

I mean, if you want to discuss something, we could ask ourselves why Wisconsin has the lowest turnout since 2000. Why Michigan had so many problems. Why Pennsylvania election officials lied to potential voters. We could do that. But we won't.

So, let me get this right:

a) the DNC was hacked (which is true news because the e-mails themselves, now in the public eye, are evidence of that), but the contents of its e-mails were a non-story.
b) Abedin's e-mails wrongly storing classified material on Weiner's computer (which is true news because the e-mails were discovered and reported by named, official FBI sources), but the contents were nothing new, although the investigation into Clinton is continuing within the FBI, at least in five offices.

but

c) the RNC is rumored (fake news from anonymous "sources") to have been hacked, although the RNC denies this and the FBI has found no evidence that the RNC was ever hacked, and the material gleaned from this rumored hacking, which never happened, is somehow going to be blackmail material that will subordinate the USG to Russia.

Holy fucking god, the inconsistencies are mindboggling.

I'm finally seeing some media questioning this CIA nonsense as well, citing many, many examples from their own tortured history as well as more recent facts.

This story is clearly planted and I, for one, do not for a moment believe these media shills or their anonymous sources nor can I give them even a shred of credibility. They could, would, and in fact have been the cheerleaders for any number of ill-advised wars, so anyone trying to reheat the Cold War based on anonymous rumors is going to be considered a warmongering shill for that very reason.

And that's ignoring those self-admitted "hacks" like Glenn Thrush who are proven shills. I mean, funny coincidence that, just look at what this "hack" is peddling:

The Kremlin’s canny operatives didn’t change votes; they won them, influencing voters to choose Russia’s preferred outcome by pushing stolen information at just the right time—through slanted, or outright false stories on social media.

So, Glenn, you say that Russia won this for Trump by revealing that you're a self-described hack? Please do go on...

Are you going to then explain how Russia made Donna Brazille rig the debates? Or lie about them being altered, despite the fact that we have DKIM validation to provide cryptographic non-repudiation of the message body? Or were they responsible for all the many ways the Democratic primary was a farce? Did Russia make them adopt the "pied piper" strategy to promote Trump, believing he would lose to Hillary? Did Russia keep them from holding campaign events in their "firewall" states and ignoring their own staffers? Maybe Russia planted that fake news CNN reported about it being illegal to read Wikileaks (lest one find their involvement in the aforementioned debate rigging...). Maybe next time they'll be smarter and simply publish the debate questions for everyone? Did Russia cause Hillary to collapse in the street and get thrown into a van after all that insistence that her health was just fine? Did Russia do the "bird dogging" wherein you staged violence at the Trump rallies and blamed Bernie's supporters for it? Did they hack the FEC to put the operatives on the MoveOn payroll (something my past comments have covered in significant detail)? Did Russia make Zulema tell that tale to the cops outside the Arizona rally that we have plenty of independent, video coverage for? Did Russia give Zulema credits on those "Trump Ducks" photos that only further corroborate O'Keefe's videos? Did Russia funnel all of the money from the state campaigns to Hillary's campaign to make the losses even more painful when she managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?

There's a reason the DNC is fighting this so hard in so many ways. This is a fight for their own survival. By all rights, their leadership should be entirely replaced.... which makes me wonder if there are any actual plans out there to do that. We seem to live in interesting times.

Suppose Russians really did it and imagine they even had said in September "hey Americans we hacked your emails and we're releasing them because we hate you." Do you really believe it would have changed what people thought of Clinton and Trump?

That's not really the point. The point is that Russia deliberately and explicitly tried to interfere.
Whether it worked or not is a separate question.

If Trump weren't such a thin-skinned man-baby he would say, "I won on the issues, russian meddling did not help me. But russian meddling is a serious threat to our sovereignty and can not be tolerated in any way. As president I will take all appropriate measures to protect the sanctity of the american electoral process."

Instead all he can do is deny what's been kinda obvious for months. The guy himself even publicly encouraged russia to hack clinton. No matter how his handlers spin that, no one can deny that it was an acknowledgement of Russia's involvement back in July.

The emission of the DNC emails is not nearly as concerning to me as the omission of the data stolen from the RNC.

Except that the RNC was never hacked, so they didn't have any stolen data to release.

Putin knew. Who didn't?

Story where Obama called up GM to fire their CEO because he wasn't doing what Obama wanted.

Are you afraid the president may fire top executives at large companies and replace them with his own pick as he seizes the company from the stock/bond holders and hands it out to his political supporters (unions). I missed the part where you were complaining when it WAS ALREADY DONE.

Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.

Whew, sure glad to see that's not the case!

The sad part is that Trump is not the real problem. Oh he is a problem and a Huuuuuge one, but not the real one. The differences this election were stark. You had basic average long time somewhat uninspiring centrist versus Trump who was largely:

1) Substance Free
2) Fact Free
3) Full of obvious appeals to emotion. Fear the Terrorists. Do it Now!
4) Morals Free. Gram em by the p***y.
5) Full's of obvious appeals to racists and misogynists. Birthirism and all the crap about Hillary being sick, weak, tired, and all the rest.

All in all the real problem is a completely unqualified con man who I find to be the worst example of humanity to ever win the nomination of a major party in my lifetime was able to run on a stack of lies and win. How do you recover from that? Seriously how do you recover from that? You think there is a shortage of Trump's in this world? I seriously doubt it. This playbook will be used again, and again, and again.

Even now, Trump is admitting he lied on things like Birthirism, lock her up, Trump U, drain the swamp, obamacare, etc and there seems to be no real backlash about it.

The electors should take all this into account, along with all his foreign entanglements, and the fact that he is still hiding his taxes, even from them, and for the love of common decency choose someone else. Hell, the Clinton elector's would probably pick Romney if you asked them. Sure without the hacking and Comey's nonsense Hillary would have won, but at this point I'd be thrilled to get Mitt Romney. At least he had enough ethics not to apologize for telling the truth, even if he did suck up a little post election. Fundamentally he seems to be a good man, with policies I don't agree with, but a good man, and he probably wouldn't put putin's pall in charge of state.

Nobody cares. California only votes Democrat, so no one is going to put resources into investigating

Oh. The land of Reagan doesn't care about corrupt Democrats. Got it.

Here's a fun fact for you: California has gone for Democratic presidential candidates 18 times, and for Republican candidates 23 times. From 1952 through 1988 it went Republican for every election except the one in 1964.

They have had 38 governors. 15 of them have been Democrats, 22 Republicans. One of those Democrats was the second governor in American history to get recalled by voters, maybe you remember that, and he was replaced with a Republican (perhaps you've heard of him). Here's how libby California voted in that election. Republican candidates got over 62% of the vote on about 61% voter turnout.

But, yeah, Republicans totally don't care about those 55 electoral votes, or taking control back from the Democrats, right? They know about a major federal voting fraud offense apparently perpetrated by Democrats or liberals or whatever, but they don't care enough to act on it. Makes total sense. They know that Americans in general don't care at all about voter fraud, in fact it wasn't even mentioned during this entire election cycle. Riiiiiight.

Do you even believe yourself?

But, remember, you don't have to be an illegal immigrant to commit voter fraud (look at that, references from this year). It's just easier to blame "scary" groups like immigrants when you're trying to convince 73% of Republicans that the election is going to be stolen from them, even though every actual investigation has shown the actual rates to be statistically negligible.

But, hey, "millions of illegal immigrants voting in California" hits several buttons. It hits your "illegal immigrants are scary" button, the "liberals are evil" button, all kinds of good stuff there. That's why you believe it, even though it is completely false and there is not a single shred of evidence that it exists.

Given how Billary was successful in distancing herself from all that dirty Russian money, and how easily the entire mainstream media presence crammed itself into her pocket, you can bet there's a propaganda machine hard at work here in the USA. And it ain't no commies neither.

What pisses me off is how she's convinced nearly half of American voters that the red on her hands is neither communist coin dust nor the blood of tens of thousands of innocents.

And shame on you if you disregarded that link because it looks non mainstream. There's a media war afoot and we the people are no longer buying the lies of Wall Street's chosen one.

Accusing a federal judge of being unable to discharge his duties because he's Hispanic, and a member of the Hispanic Bar Association (one of hundreds of such affinity lawyers groups), manifestly is racist, as even Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was forced to admit.

Insofar as Islam, it is a sprawling religion consisting of 2.2 billion adherents, with many sub-ideologies. If you yourself have not apologized for the "Klan" (who call themselves Christian and "light" crosses as emblems of their WASP faith), then any broad brush attack on Muslims over the actions of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda of Iraq (a.k.a. ISIS) is pure bigotry.

Bashing illegal immigration, while conspicuously being entirely unconcerned that Trump's own wife Melaina was clearly an illegal immigrant, is again not only a sign of hypocrisy, but one of racism. Because there is no legal difference between the two situations. Merely a skin color one.

The reason why people continue to call Trump racist is because he is. The reason why people call his supporters racist, is because there is hard evidence of racist attitudes taken from surveys of them.

The idea that a racist is going to suddenly vote for the party who opposes racism, instead of the Republican party that it has been proven benefits from it, if only people wouldn't point out their racism, is absurd.

Is that enough research for you?

Actually..

Obama ASKED the CEO to step down, and the CEO accepted his request. He didn't have to, but he did.

This was also after the Gov't bailed out GM. So there's some context to his request that you decided to leave out.

"Obama and his aides may have honed in on Wagoner for two reasons. First, his company is asking for the most in total federal aid: $26 billion, a figure administration officials fear could grow even larger. Second, the GM chief was tied more directly to the ill-fated decisions that that brought much of the American auto industry to the brink of collapse. Wagoner joined GM in 1977, has had a senior role in GM management since 1992, and became CEO of the company in 2000. He is considered responsible for increasing GM's focus on trucks and SUVs—at the expense of the hybrids and fuel efficient cars that have become more popular in the last couple of years. "

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

So unless Twitter is requesting a bailout from the Gov't, there is nothing close to the supposed precedent that you wish to believe is true.

Seriously - I want to hear from an avid trump supporter on how this - as well as his other cabinet appointments is draining the swamp (of special interest lobbyists).

Firstly, this isn't a cabinet appointment.

As to draining the swamp, he's already done this.

Thirdly, he's not in office yet, wait to see what he actually does.

And finally, you always have to ask "compared to what?"

The Democrats have no vision or leadership on this issue, or any other.

Calling Trump bad on his choices is all they have.

Bear this in mind: A Democrat tried to block the FBI from hacking any computer anywhere and a Republican tried to stop it.

And yes, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has been opposing this snooping since he entered the Senate in 1996, so no, it doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump or President Obama.

Yep.

Taking $60 million from down-ballot campaigns and giving it to the Clinton campaign so she could defeat Bernie Sanders doesn't seem like such a good move now, does it?

One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:

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

Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.

I wonder if you will be making Hillary comparisons for the next four god damned years.
Nothing can be said about Trump without a diversion to Hillary, it's fucking hilarious.

Uh, I was replying to someone who made the Hillary comparison. But the point stands: everything that the left thinks is so awful about Trump applies equally or more to their own candidates, they just choose to ignore it.

One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:

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

Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.

I wonder if you will be making Hillary comparisons for the next four god damned years. Nothing can be said about Trump without a diversion to Hillary, it's fucking hilarious.

Are you surprised? In any debate concerning Donald Trump, if you can invoke some crooked Hillary related factoid, you have won the debate. There are several other magic words and phrases with the same properties. They include: 'political correctness', 'lügenpresse', 'communism', 'socialism', 'federal tyranny', 'ZOG', 'redistribution of wealth',... the list goes on.

One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:

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

Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.

...and the catering staff were all illegal raping, murdering drug dealing Mexicans while the food was imported from Iran and all the guests were members of ZOG? True fact because you read it on Bretbart!

One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:

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

Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.

I wonder if you will be making Hillary comparisons for the next four god damned years.
Nothing can be said about Trump without a diversion to Hillary, it's fucking hilarious.

One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:

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

Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," Trump wrote on Twitter. There is no evidence to support Trump's claim and PolitiFact ruled it false.

Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence.
In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.

"Mostly" is being generous.

Assange took the unprecedented step to say specifically "it was not the Russians". He has stated that they never reveal their sources, so to go that far (eliminating Russia gives information about the actual source) he probably felt the fear-mongering was a prelude to a declaration of war, or at least minor hostility.

(And to be fair, it sure looked, at the time, that America was ginning up for a fight with Russia.)

And as for Clinton wanting to kill him, she specifically asked in a meeting "can't we just drone this guy", apparently was not joking, and as a result of the meeting the aides sent her a list of "legal and non-legal strategies" for dealing with assange.

But then again, this could be fake news. Hillary doesn't remember joking about Assange, and Snopes has the "drone strike" claim listed as "unproven".

(Note: The "legal and extra-legal" link is to a copy of the actual memo sent to Hillary.)

Now that Hillary has lost, her supports can't accept the results.

False. Hillary Clinton has accepted the results. That's why she gave her concession speech.

Her supporters, while appalled at the results and letting their opinions known, have also accepted the results.

Death threats to electors.

You do know Republicans were trying to bribe electors during the primary to not vote for Trump, don't you? That's right. Those god-fearing, family values Republicans were offering cash, or other, bribes to state electors to not vote for Trump but someone like Mark Rubio. But that's okay, right?

Offering the pay fines for electors who break the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on whether levying the fines in the first place is constitutional since nowhere in the Constitution does it say electors must vote for a person or face a penalty for not doing so.

Also, several electors have said they may not vote for Trump, including this one from Texas who interprets (a la the late Justice Scalia) the Constitutional electoral college requirement to mean he has the right to "take a look at all the facts, figure it out and make the right call."

Also, as you'll also note, the elector said since his district would most likely vote for Clinton, he could use that as another reason not to vote for Trump since he was doing the bidding of the electors.

Jill Stein taking donations to force a recount where even she says that there was no fraudulent or illegal activity.

So it's like the supposed "massive" voter fraud which Republicans claim is going on but have provided zero evidence for yet still pass laws to prevent something which doesn't exist?

Further, there is evidence (see the previous /. story) to suggest something odd may be going on in those three big states where electronic voting was used. Wouldn't it be nice to be sure that a vote cast for Trump was recorded for Trump and not Hillary, and vice versa? If you're so sure nothing illegal is going on then why not go ahead and do a recount? It's not your money being used since Stein is the one who has to pay for it.

MSM story after story about how the circumvent the will of the people.

Ah yes, the canard of the mainstream media. The ones who report as accurately as they can rather than making shit up (see today's story about Fox's fake story about porn on CNN). Let me show you how great those not-MSM folks are:

Electoral college victory guaranteed for Hillary. As you can see, everything was rigged by the democrats which is why Hillary won.

Absolutely right

Here you go.

TL;DR - limitations on direct campaign donations was circumvented by donations to downticket campaigns which the DNC collected and funneled into HRC's campaign.

TOTALLY AGREE. As an ex-military NCO with top secret security clearance - requiring quarterly briefings and signed documents attesting to your understanding of the responsibilities and penalties - I am fully aware of the offenses and penalties for abridging the classified document handling procedures.
INTENT is NOT a requirement, only that it HAPPENED by the person's personal choice and their own volition.
THIS, along with being a well-entrenched part of the 'establishment', is what cost "Hillary - dillary - can't touch me - I'm a politician, a lawyer, and I'm rich" the election, even though the choice was an agonizing one of the 'known devil' vs the 'perceived devil'.

Take a trip down memory lane with the following: (some pro, many con'vict')
http://rense.com/general80/hop...
http://www.wnd.com/2000/04/447...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
https://peterfrancisgeracilaw....
https://www.truthorfiction.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://conservativeamerican.or...
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Americans have made their choice, whether through the electoral college or the basic raw vote count - - - being tilted a bit in Hillary's favor, but with the small margin still showing an inherent distrust of the entrenched 2-party system - either side is the same, just a bit different on the talking points - - - basically, the same old shit !

News reports already seem to indicate that president-elect Trump is willing to accept new information and alter his 'campaign promises __LOL__ ' in order to get down to the actual business of running the country.

They're doing exactly what they said they feared Trump supporters would do if he lost

They're doing nothing at all like what Trump[supporters] did before the results were even known. First of all, Trump himself claimed the election was rigged before any evidence at all surfaced. Then, his supporters claimed there has already been mass election fraud without any evidence. This was well beyond what any candidate or party has done before. No surprise the results of this were a lot of voter intimidation (funny). Note this is the first election since the Voting Rights Act has been curtailed.

My point is that one side has already gone well, well beyond the norm when it comes to claiming an election is rigged. I'm quite positive they would've done more than mostly peaceful rallies if they had lost. Now, the dems have this study, and are simply asking for more investigation. So tone down the outrage.

I have to call BS on your BS

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

It really was there for a long time, but they took it down after the election.

Actually, even Clinton turned against the TPP: it is just that bad a deal. For those with short memories: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-reject-obama-trade-226920

But, now that Trump's been elected, the anti-Trump chorus wants to find fault with everything he does, even when he does things that Clinton agreed with him about.

Then how about he commutes the sentence of Chelsea Manning - someone who went before a military court instead of running, who's already served more time than any other whistleblower in our nation's history?

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

Donald trump has threatened many times to curtail the press and sue people who don't agree with him when he becomes President.

So? Donald Trump threatening the press in no way contradicts what I said about the Democrats.

There has been no call from any Democrats that I'm aware of, advocating for government censorship.

Well, then you are living under a rock.

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

https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

the public has lost faith in the media broadly

Snopes included.

After faithfully repeating President Obama's promise, any "undocumented citizens" who vote will not be prosecuted for such fraud, the site declared the claim, that he made such a promise "False" anyway.

That's when even my industrial strength bullshit-meter blew up...

Fact-checkers are now grossly partisan and, to borrow a phrase, should not be doing a lot of talking. Consider the following hilarious example:

There are non-funny examples too.

If by exposed you mean they admitted they had a fraud on the payroll, yes. If you mean the NYT investigated him and discovered the falsehoods - not quite. They were blissfully unaware until:
"The senior editor of the San Antonio Express-News had contacted The New York Times about the resemblance between Blair's article in The New York Times and Hernandez's article in his paper."

That's proof that professional journalism works. The difference between the New York Times and a fake news website like Breitbart is that there is actually a measure of shame that comes from something like the Jayson Blair affair. Another organization calls you out and you have to retract and apologize. We have seen no evidence that Breitbart is capable of shame or self-correction in any form.

The best you can do with a Breitbart is exercise legal remedies, like in the Shirley Sherrod affair. Unfortunately, without the deep pockets of a billionaire with an axe to grind, it's nearly impossible to prosecute a shady outfit like Breitbart for libel.

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

on a single sweep the GOP gained control of the White House, congress and, as soon as vacancies are filled, the Supreme Court. Don't expect a lot of pushbacks on those ends.

It depends:

If Trump tries to lighten the amount of regulations on businesses, don't expect a lot of pushback. If he tries to lower taxes, don't expect a lot of pushback.

But a relative of mine said that Trump will start rounding up minorities and putting them into concentration camps. If Trump tries to do anything like that? Pushback. Expect it.

If Trump tries to strip LGBT of equal protection under the law? (I don't know why we are even talking about that, he hasn't historically been negative about LGBT, but my liberal friends are saying he will be a disaster to LGBT.) Again, expect pushback.

In short, don't expect a lot of pushback on the typical center-right issues. But if Trump actually starts doing any of the deranged dictator stuff that my liberal friends are staying awake at night worrying about, do expect pushback. Lots.

I even expect pushback if Trump goes crazy with Executive Orders. For some reason the Congress just took it when President Obama started overstepping the bounds of the Presidency, but I really don't think the Congress will take it from Trump. All the Democrats would be opposed and enough of the Republicans would be opposed.

Also, I'm grimly looking forward to the spectacle once the Republicans start nominating Supreme Court Justices. I expect the Democrats to link arms and obstruct every single candidate, no matter how reasonable and qualified. If they actually do this I then expect to see the Republicans invoke the Harry Reid precedent and shut down the filibuster on Supreme Court Justice nominations. I don't actually want to see this happen, but the silver lining would be the entertainment of watching liberals explain how the Harry Reid precedent isn't really a precedent at all, it's totally different this time, etc.

Obama set the record for an active president campaigning for Hillary Clinton . http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
Obama in 2011 Trolling Trump, funny Trump has his job now http://time.com/3991301/donald....
Obama Feb 2016 , Trump won't be president http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...
Obama "at least I will be a president" http://www.politico.com/story/...
Obama playing the KKK card https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Obama continuing his un-presidential arrogant tone http://www.businessinsider.com... .

The Russian call it Kompromat. And they perfect that dark art.

As to the business connections. Trump works with Russian investors, and brought the Ms. Universe pageant to Moscow.

I like the roof idea.

And yet, it is all vaporware.

The company receives billions of taxpayers' money and donates millions to the "pro-solar" politicians — to keep the subsidies coming in.

With such an arrangement, why bother with any product at all? Solarcity is yet to show profit. What makes it "attractive" to Tesla is that it is run by cousins of Elon Musk. I don't blame him for wanting to get in on the racket.

I can also understand why they're doing it. It's the response of the plutocrats to the threat as formulated by Nick Hanauer. It's about avoiding the backlash of runaway inequality.

And if it's not entirely their response, it will soon be.

To be honest, I consider myself a libertarian at heart, as I side with liberals on a lot of social issues, as sort of a live-and-let-live person. But it's the big-government socialism that kills it for me, as I think that's an anathema to personal liberty, as well as ramping up the ever-increasing national dept, which is going to leave our children a hell of an economic hole to crawl out of. Absolutely inexcusable, and history is going to look very badly at us unless we bring it under control.

The white supremacists have been denounced time and time again by the mainstream of our party - and by Trump too, but no one seems to mention that. But let's face it... the Democrats are the home of the vast majority of blacks, and a majority of Hispanics. Unfortunately, that means racists really only have the Republicans as a home, despite the fact that we don't want them, and would rather court blacks and Hispanics, which we've been trying to do unsuccessfully for years. But I think we've got a long way to go, and need to fix a lot of things in our party. This election cycle certainly hasn't helped matters.

But what do I do if I believe, say, my anti-illegal immigration stance (based on issues like sovereignty, security, and economics) happens to align with a racist who "just wants to keep Mexicans out of the country?" Or if I oppose affirmative action on principles of true equality but someone else doesn't want to give blacks a hand up? I can't *help* it if my policy choice aligns with some asshole's racist ideals, and I fear few Democrats will truly believe my explanation, that I'm not secretly some racist.

It's admittedly an uncomfortable situation for many Republicans like me. But the Democrat's economic policies are just too insane for me to willingly give them a mandate. Besides, I think our country is moving towards more liberal social positions without putting the D's in power.

Trump can simply build a wall around China.

If Trump really believes climate change isn't real, then why is he building walls around his golf courses? (to be correct, he wants it around Ireland).

He should put his money where his mouth is and not do it. Hell, Ireland should say since it's not real, he doesn't need the wall. It's either real, and it's in his economic best interest to protect his properties, or it's not real as he claims, in which case he doesn't need the walls.

First point: In my original post above, I did not specify who the outsiders are. Unless the protests are being paid for by the actual protesters, then there must be an outside source of funds. That isn't conspiracy theory, that's economics 101, someone has to pay the bills. Whether is is George Soros or someone else, and whether the outsiders funded thousands of dollars or millions, the point stands that someone with money is funding the protests.

Second point: A Google search for "funding of black lives matter" shows numerous links to articles debating the truth and falsehood of particular persons and groups funding Black Lives Matter in particular, and other similar/related groups in general. Go read a few, and you'll find more than white supremacy to keep you occupied.

Here are a few interesting ones.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/...
http://www.snopes.com/ford-mot...
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Third point: I also did not limit my statement to any specific protest group that has happened lately. So how about a Google search for "funding of protests"?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...

I'm sure you will use your cop-out line of "white supremacists" and "alt-right", and whatever hand-waving you have to do, to ignore reports that you don't like. There were certainly links to the sites you mentioned, and others you will also ignore. But it would take a strong will to ignore all of them.

Have a nice day.

Vent all you want but your words ring hollow when for the last eight years all we've heard is how bad things are, how horrible this president has been, how he should be impeached (for doing his job), and all the other vitriol cast upon him almost solely because of his race

References, please. Who said these things? Random Internet trolls, or what? I haven't seen any major figures in the Republican party cast vitriol on President Obama because of his race.

I can't claim that none of them are racists, but I can claim that none of them were caught saying such things, because the news media has a field day anytime a Republican says something stupid or hateful or embarrassing.

If things are so bad then why suddenly, when not a single thing has changed in the last week, are Republicans suddenly saying the economy is doing well and there are no problems?

Your reference does not support your claim. You said that Republicans are suddenly saying that the economy is doing well, but you linked to a poll about whether the economy will improve or not ("economic confidence"). And surprise surprise, Democrats polled believe that the economy will do worse now that Trump was elected, while Republicans polled believe that the economy will do better.

Because in a Republican's world if you don't bow down to your leader, if you don't blindly follow the leader, if you don't think like the leader, you're an enemy. Wouldn't want to open a Republican's hypocritical and bigoted mind by listening to others who don't agree, now would we?

I'm sure you could find some examples of Republicans like this, if you look. But I can find plenty of examples of Democrats like this, who feel that anyone who isn't a liberal Democrat is an enemy.

President Obama famously said that it's important to vote to "punish your enemies."[1] The Project Veritas videos show multiple Democrat operatives saying that Trump voters are violent and insane, and one referring to Republicans as "you f***ing ****holes".[2] In 2015, Hillary Clinton called Republicans "enemies" and Bill Clinton said she was right to do so. Here's an article detailing a list of Republicans or conservatives who are considered "enemies" by Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid declared the Koch brothers are "enemies of progress."

Liberals don't like to praise Ronald Reagan, but he was very successful at working with the opposition. He had a famous saying: "It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it." (It appears that Harry S. Truman said it first... hey, it's bipartisan! And similar quotes have been found from over 150 years ago. source)

[1] Full quote for full context:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

[2] Full quote for full context:

"It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say, 'Well, they're busing people in.' Well, you know what? We've been busing people in to deal with you f***ing ***holes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now, we're just going to find a different way to do it."

Vent all you want but your words ring hollow when for the last eight years all we've heard is how bad things are, how horrible this president has been, how he should be impeached (for doing his job), and all the other vitriol cast upon him almost solely because of his race

References, please. Who said these things? Random Internet trolls, or what? I haven't seen any major figures in the Republican party cast vitriol on President Obama because of his race.

I can't claim that none of them are racists, but I can claim that none of them were caught saying such things, because the news media has a field day anytime a Republican says something stupid or hateful or embarrassing.

If things are so bad then why suddenly, when not a single thing has changed in the last week, are Republicans suddenly saying the economy is doing well and there are no problems?

Your reference does not support your claim. You said that Republicans are suddenly saying that the economy is doing well, but you linked to a poll about whether the economy will improve or not ("economic confidence"). And surprise surprise, Democrats polled believe that the economy will do worse now that Trump was elected, while Republicans polled believe that the economy will do better.

Because in a Republican's world if you don't bow down to your leader, if you don't blindly follow the leader, if you don't think like the leader, you're an enemy. Wouldn't want to open a Republican's hypocritical and bigoted mind by listening to others who don't agree, now would we?

I'm sure you could find some examples of Republicans like this, if you look. But I can find plenty of examples of Democrats like this, who feel that anyone who isn't a liberal Democrat is an enemy.

President Obama famously said that it's important to vote to "punish your enemies."[1] The Project Veritas videos show multiple Democrat operatives saying that Trump voters are violent and insane, and one referring to Republicans as "you f***ing ****holes".[2] In 2015, Hillary Clinton called Republicans "enemies" and Bill Clinton said she was right to do so. Here's an article detailing a list of Republicans or conservatives who are considered "enemies" by Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid declared the Koch brothers are "enemies of progress."

Liberals don't like to praise Ronald Reagan, but he was very successful at working with the opposition. He had a famous saying: "It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it." (It appears that Harry S. Truman said it first... hey, it's bipartisan! And similar quotes have been found from over 150 years ago. source)

[1] Full quote for full context:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

[2] Full quote for full context:

"It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say, 'Well, they're busing people in.' Well, you know what? We've been busing people in to deal with you f***ing ***holes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now, we're just going to find a different way to do it."

In retrospect it turns out that the American public did reject one of the worst candidates in the last 50 years, and most Senate Republicans would agree with that. Fortunately due to Senator Reid (D-NV) it seems highly likely that there will be no obstruction in filling 99 open vacancies for federal judges. That might even apply to the Supreme Court. If they perform they will very possibly get what they deserve: reelection from a grateful nation.

The item below is dated before Trump's victory and the retention of the Senate by the Republicans.
Democrats brace against potential 2018 Senate 'disaster'
There are 25 Democrat seats up, and 8 Republican, basically the reverse of this year.

Of course two years is a long time in politics and a lot can happen between now and then.

Here's the video of him saying "I will accept the results, if I win." This clearly implies he would not be willing to accept the result in other circumstances. Really, there's no other implication that can be made with this language.

It takes long term behavior to change, not one or two things.

Correct, making your example less meaningful.

Being racist in 1975 and then not being racist for the past 20 years means you're no longer a racist. If you don't allow people to ever change, then they won't.

Sure a person can change, but they have to show it. You're assuming that we believe Trump hasn't been racist for the past 20 years, that we've seen nothing he's done, and find it racist. You know, like the birther business he willfully engaged in.

And if that person says "we settled that case with no admission of guilt" then maybe I'm going to think that they haven't changed. You know he did that. This year. That shows something very recent.

He could have added just a little bit expressing how terrible the racism and bigotry that did occur at the time was bad. It wouldn't even have necessarily needed him to take responsibility, though that would be even more indicative. No wait, he was very dismissive, it just one of those things. And he threw in the bit about no nasty commercials. LOL. Sure dude, and the only way that's true is technically, in practice, Trump did say all sorts of nasty things. That kind of superfluous deceit does him no favors. It's a red flag, not for racism, but for dishonesty.

David Duke is clearly a racist, but I'm sure he still loves his mother and would probably help an injured black person on the side of the road. It isn't a "pure evil/pure good" thing.

Which basically means all your harping from before is meaningless. David Duke is clearly a racist, but you think he can help an injured black person on the side of the road. Ok, then Donald Trump can still be a racist, he can just be a little more canny about it, maybe even a little more oblivious.

Hitler didn't actually hate Jews, that was just a means to an end, "useful idiots" so to speak. He did business with them and you should read up on Emil Maurice who was from Jewish decent. He was SS Member #2 right behind Hitler, yet Hitler ordered Himmler to make an exception for his friend.

Yes, one of Hitler's best friends... was Jewish! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Then I'd hate to be someone he really did say, since that sure makes the Holocaust...exactly as terrible as it is before, you're just saying it was somehow comparable to the concept of Useful idiots? At least stick to scapegoats. Idiots has an implication that you should really avoid. If you don't want to intend offense, that is.

You can say whatever you imagine was in Hitler's mind, pointless though those excuses are, but the fact of his extermination program won't ever change. This little aside isn't helping your image either, you know. That gratuitous "useful idiots" was really a net loss in terms of persuasiveness.

You can make it back though, just say you realize now it was an offensive and insensitive expression that you chose without properly considering.

Trump didn't complain about a judge who happened to be Hispanic. He said the judge would not be able to do his job *because of his ethnicity.* How can that not be racist?

I don't see that as racist at all. If the roles were reversed and I was the judge (I'm white) and Trump were Hispanic and complained that I was white and thus wouldn't be impartial due to my race... then he might be right!

Trump isn't saying Hispanics are bad, or lessor people, he is saying that his race is a conflict of interest.

And it CAN be one, and it isn't racist to

Trump would trample all over the constitution:

Trump vs. the Constitution: A Guide - POLITICO Magazine

Remember Obama's pledge to end the lobbyists getting into the cabinet? Heh.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Uhm. OK. You know why we called him a racist and a misogynist? Because he is a racist and a misogynist. Unless you were asleep during the campaign, you couldn't possibly have missed that.

The Nazi and Hitler references? Well, I could point out that he's a populist demagogue, running on a platform of racial scapegoating (and that's not a small part of this campaign, that's been the core of the campaign he ran since he stepped on that elevator and made his first speech announcing his candidacy), who's advocated violence against peaceful opponents, and who's made it clear he plans to abuse the law to punish opposition.

But... there's a quicker way to demonstrate he's a fascist. which is to ask the Neo-Nazis what they think. And they're pretty much unanimous in supporting him. . They're doing victory laps.

What would you call him?

Don't fucking mainstream him because he won. He's still the fascist we warned you about. And he's an existential threat to this country.

Perhaps this is what we are seeing?