Slashdot Mirror

When a racket has billions backing the propaganda your fighting a losing battle.

I don't trust the fossil fuel folks, but I also don't trust the ppl caught in the hadley CRU scandal.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Sometimes its just about ppl flagrantly lying and getting caught at it.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

I believe we are polluting the planet horribly, but lying about it isn't helping.

Your original claim was that "The Democrats openly dislike and work against them [white people]". Your cites included one from someone who wasn't necessarily a Democrat, and one a call for diversity that may have gone too far. Let's see, that's jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, five yards, using it as an ad hominem, ten yards, changing the topic ten yards, that's twenty-five yards, still second down.

As far as "the qualifications be related to the job" goes, there is solid evidence that white-appearing males tend to get interviews over others of similar qualifications. How do you know that all the white guys were hired because they were the best qualified?

To be honest you only confirm my opinion. You describe blatant law breaking as "a call for diversity that may have gone too far". Not even did go too far, as it clearly did, just a maybe. I wonder what it would take for you to consider it as too far. Regarding your subtle implication that the existing white workers were maybe not qualified, they must have been. After all the leadership there is clearly against them and wants to see straight white applicants filtered out of the hiring process. Since you seem to want more citations here are a few:

https://www.realclearpolitics.... https://www.theguardian.com/us... http://www.newsweek.com/white-... plus the free pass they give extremeists from Black Panthers, La Raza, Antifa, and other shameful organizations that would all qualify as bad to the media if they were trying to help white people.

I'm reminded of an old college professor of mine who was so frustrated one day. He was a solid liberal (big surprise for a college professor I know) and had always been a fan of affirmative action and the like as he always figured that it impacted someone other than him and was for the greater good. Anyway his son had just graduated from the fire academy and was second in his class having just barely missed top cadet. However he couldn't find a job. The people being most aggressively recruited were minorities and especially women. He was stunned that affirmative action could produce bad outcomes. He was equally outraged that his son was discriminated against on the basis of his skin color or gender. Me personally, when I think of a fire I want the best possible, most qualified candidate to be in charge of rescuing me or my family. I don't want the quota who is less qualified.

I'm neither a D nor an R but in general I think being a straight white male means Democrats dislike me. Not literally every Democrat, but enough that I can't get behind them. They choose illegal immigrants kids (AKA dreamers) over actual citizens like my kids. They mistake the 1% being largely white for all white people are the 1% and have it easy. Indeed it's because they don't want the best person for the job and instead want to play social engineer that I want government to be as small as possible. They have clearly chosen their side and I'm not it.

I would be interested in where you got this information from? Probably from the same place that predicted Hillary would win in a landslide.

It is not a prediction. The candidates that Donald Trump endorsed lost tonight by much bigger than expected margins. The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Even the Virginia House flipped from Republican to Democratic.

I would also like to see the data that you have that says Trump is an ineffective leader.

He hasn't been able to get a single bit of his landmark legislative agenda passed. The greatest deal-maker to have ever lived can't seem to cut a deal.

All of the polls...all of them, including the right-leaning ones, show Trump at his lowest approval ratings since he was elected. Here's a conservative website that has the news for you:

https://www.realclearpolitics....

I could just as easily say "three more years" and have about the same chance of being correct."

You're still pulling the same identity politics shit and you'll get the same results.

It's so sad to see smart people dissolve into "blame the foreigners", the oldest trick in the book.

Buddy, Trump's entire campaign was based on "blame the foreigners". Now all of a sudden you don't like that approach? Have you changed your mind because the Russians are white people? Because the same white nationalist sentiment that keeps Putin in power is what got Trump elected?

https://www.realclearpolitics....

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/...

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

If anything, the democrats need it to keep whining about "foreign influence" ... while importing millions of illegal voters.

That's an established truth. 17 intelligence agencies said so. It doesn't matter if we can't find the document signed by those 17 agencies. https://www.realclearpolitics.... Hillary said it was so, and we should believe someone as courageous as her. She bravely landed under sniper fire at an airport in Bosnia in 1996. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Plus, we heard about that Russian meddling every day every hour for months. Something that is repeated that much must be true.

Here is an example of admitted voter fraud.
  https://www.realclearpolitics....!

Your source is a video by a group notorious for videos that are dishonestly edited and where they goaded people into making incriminating sounding statements?

Are you going to follow that up with a recommendation to invest with Bernie Madoff?

The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?

Of course they are.

You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.

Let me throw that back at you.

How many people voted in the last election?

How many fraudulent voters would it take to affect the election?

How many people do you think fraudulently voted?

How much would a news organization pay to someone who could give convincing proof of this, such as an illegal immigrant with a hidden iPhone filming themselves while a DNC operative helps them commit voter fraud?

Where are all these people?

The mass voter fraud theory collapses when subjected to minimal scrutiny.

Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.

Because there is absolutely zero evidence that wide-scale voter fraud exists, and voters who are inhibited by an "attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest" are disproportionately Democratic.

If the GOP was really concerned about voter fraud they'd fight mail-in ballots where there is a real (but hard to measure) fraud problem. But that screws Republican so they don't care.

Here is an example of admitted voter fraud.

https://www.realclearpolitics....!

The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?

You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.

The republican party is not terribly good. However, neither is the democrat party. The only way they improve is when people inside them realize this and try to change it.

Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.

The publishing of the voter information was not good. However, were you so up in arms calling the Obama administration did similar things when setting up the data base for the people using the affordable care act? Did you call him incompetent? If not, your rage is false. You just want to hunt the other guy, not fix the system.

In 1958...according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

And whoever told you that people didn't offshore their money in the 50s is lying to you through their teeth.

Because legally the president has the constitutionally authority to pardon flynn, and legally he can stop any investigation. No it isn't like the idiot Toobin on CNN acting like it was like Watergate, like Flynn was caught breaking into the Clintons email server would be an equilvent. Also Nixon ORDER people to lie and break federal law, as in DIRECT ORDERS, as in I ORDER YOU TO BREAK THE LAW. Oh that is Dershorwitz the Harvard professor of law, who by the way was Toobin's professor in school. Basically that mean Toobin is an dumb political hack. https://www.realclearpolitics....

This is much more likely ....

https://www.realclearpolitics....

It is not proven, but it is perfectly plausible — does not contradict anything we already know. We know, the Democratic Party has local operatives in major cities — certainly those, where the local government is Democrat-dominated — who are ready, indeed enthusiastic about inciting riots and commit other crimes to "win this motherfucker".

Why is it such an outrageous stretch to suspect, there are a few people, who are willing to commit actual murder — or pay a cynical someone for same — for the Greater Good(TM)? And we do know, that killing President would be considered Ok — what's so unbelievable about it seeming Ok to kill a lowly DNC-staffer, if he is deemed a traitor to the Progressive cause?

We also know, the very "heroine" of this story is afraid of being "disappeared" — despite being in government's custody. Is it because she would've approved of such "disappearance" of her political opponents? And if she can be afraid of being killed by government employees, why is it so unbelievable, that a Party's operative could kill someone on a street in bad neighborhood — political assassination masked as a botched robbery?

Quite coherent...

>> If you have some evidence of malfeasance in the Clinton Foundation, please provide it.

Oh dear God are you really that ill-informed, or just another one of those braindead Hillary fans that are determined to live in denial?

Just google "Clinton foundation corruption" or similar. Its all over everywhere. here's a few to get you started in case even that's to much of a challenge:

http://observer.com/2016/11/wi...

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

It was easy for Hillary to act poised because all she had to do was recite the prepared remarks her staff wrote for her, while Trump ad libbed and thought on his feet (for better or worse). You may as well give Ben Affleck credit for being a heroic shitkicker who stood toe to toe with Superman.

She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.

False

I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?

Is someone said they knew for certain he had ties to Russia I'd call BS.

But probable ties? Probably. And he could easily disprove business ties by releasing his taxes.

She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.

True, but very common.

Very much horseshit, to be technical. She is the only SoS to use a private email server exclusively. And starting a mere two years after she publicly blasted the Bush Administration for their private servers.

Yeah, she was hypocritical on that count. Also not unprecedented in a politician.

She also deleted tens of thousands of emails with the same authorization she had in setting up her server (none) which would have had her serving a few decades in prison for obstruction of justice, if her name was Hillary Smith.

Actually she's in the clear there. The law explicitly gives the official the right to identify official correspondence in their personal records, deliver it for retention, and then delete the rest. It was the responsibility of the law firm to properly sort the emails.

That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.

Pure sophistry. Hillary knew full well that the information she was dealing in was born classified. Think about it for two seconds: if the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan sends an email about the state of nuclear tensions between that country and India, does it have to be marked classified before it is treated as such?

So do you want to imprison the ambassador then?

Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.

You mean the guy who was sneaking around the sub in off-hours to take photos of things he knew were classified, possibly to sell to a foreign government?

What about the guy who sent classified information with foreign governments without authorization? I don't think he got punished... in fact I think he just got a new job.

When Clinton did the same she probably thought she was telling the truth.

So, the she's-an-incompetent-moron defense used for the "smartest person in the room". Sounds like Catholic hospitals who suddenly start arguing that a fetus isn't a person the second they are sued for a preventable miscarriage.

She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.

False

I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?

She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.

True, but very common.

Very much horseshit, to be technical. She is the only SoS to use a private email server exclusively. And starting a mere two years after she publicly blasted the Bush Administration for their private servers. She also deleted tens of thousands of emails with the same authorization she had in setting up her server (none) which would have had her serving a few decades in prison for obstruction of justice, if her name was Hillary Smith.

That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.

Pure sophistry. Hillary knew full well that the information she was dealing in was born classified. Think about it for two seconds: if the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan sends an email about the state of nuclear tensions between that country and India, does it have to be marked classified before it is treated as such? You might not know the answer, but Hillary did as an Original Classification Authority, a high-level official who was given extensive training and responsibility over classified materials.

Hillary Clinton did not use Anthony Weiner's laptop, her aid Huma Abedin did, likely with her official State Dept email address.

Her agency, her responsibility. Ask any military base commander that's been sacked after some grunt screws something up with security or nuclear weapons.

The reason why the GOP focused so much on the private email server is because it was a legit Clinton scandal, one they didn't have to invent

FTFY. Hillary Clinton ran her own unsecured, unauthorized server and deliberately deleted evidence before an investigation. Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/s...

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

The problem is he wasn't an DNC poster child. He didn't "pay his dues". He was a wildcard that they didn't want to deal with and look where that got them.

>* actually we do know where the Wikileaks data came from, a DNC insider

No, all we know is that Assange says it was not Russia. That's not the same as him saying it was a DNC insider. Furthermore that's not the same as saying it wasn't a russian cut-out. It would be pretty damn stupid of Russia to not use a cut-out and Assange would have no way of knowing.

> almost certainly one who was subsequently murdered

Oh jesus christ. You know what? It was Vince Foster in a fucking time machine. It was not Seth Rich and you assholes are shitting all over him to justify your conspiracy fantasies. By falsely claiming he was unhappy with the DNC you disrespect his own choices and beliefs. Shame on you.

They made a reasonable decision: Bernie looked unelectable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Bringing up 538 is pretty random. But since you did. He was the one pollster who consistently said that Trump had at least a 30% chance of winning.

trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton

nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

nate-silver-warns-media-against-dangerous-assumption-trump-isnt-really-closing-in-on-hillary

election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump

nate silver forecasts showing clinton with 99 chance of winning dont pass commonsense test

nate silver projects trump will win florida

nate silver 511 chance trump-winning-if-election-held-today

nate silvers terrifying-prediction prepare president-trump

election update as the race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton

In as much as one can know these things, the State of Georgia was not expected to go any other way.

Remember, fraud would have to be perpetrated at the precinct level since Statewide totals available at the Secretary of State's office would just be the sums of previously recorded vote counts. It seems much more likely election fraud would be attempted in State races which are considered toss-ups... pre-election polls showed a close race in Ohio, for instance, and it went to Trump by a wide margin.

see? this is how I know were in a coma for the past 8 years:
100% delusional statements like that one, completely disconnected from reality.

read, and be edumicated:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
https://mic.com/articles/22662...
http://www.liberalamerica.org/...

Tell these people that "Nobody at all likes Hillary."

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/

PVI chart in the midst of this article is very interesting. Negative means more likely to vote Republican for Congress.

Trump is an egotist and will keep all the big decisions for himself.

The rest is just unrealistic. More fever dreams. Pop a Xanax or something.

Someone might have told Obama the same thing in 2009. He might have been able to accomplish something if he'd tried to be President of all Americans rather than saying "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.".

It looks like Trump is going to win 305 to 233. That's not winning "by a whisker", it's what Kennedy got elected on, and not much worse than Obama.

(If you discount electoral college votes due to illegal immigrants, it's actually more like 309 to 229.)

This kind of patronizing attitude is the most pervasive form of sexism. Women don't need "their turn" they're perfectly capable of competing for top jobs.

You know what I like best about the Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton era? All of the healing on relations between the sexes.

Michelle Obama: Hillary Clinton Has “Waited Her Turn” To Be President (Video at link)

Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina: "We Want Hillary Clinton To Be The Next President," "It's Her Turn And Her Time"

Former Obama campaign manager and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina said Priorities USA, the Super PAC he is co-chairman of, will support Hillary Clinton for president of the United States. Messina is also chairman of the 501(c)(4) Organizing for Action (formerly Obama for America). . . .

"You're pouring your money towards Hillary, correct?" Farrow asked Messina.

"Yep," Messina said. "We want Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States."

"It's her turn and her time," Messina also said. I think she would be the right leader for this country moving forward. And we're going to do whatever it takes to make sure she's the president of the United States."

You've been so helpful in identifying sexism. Why are there so many prominent sexists in the Democratic party? (hat tip )

FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"

Talk about a left wing canard. Nixon didn't do that. He said he didn't, others said he didn't. I believe him. Clifford was a paranoid and your source is a
freelance science writer with no credentials.

Now, the truth.

A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."

People have to remember that Nate Silver is using statistics based on assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be valid.

And he's also using statistics based on data and there is a whole lot more (and much much better) data during a national general election than there is of the individual parties state-by-state.

I bet if you think about it, you'll figure out how the general and the primaries can't really be compared.

Anyway, we also have assumptions made by Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c... ...and assumptions made by people who are actually betting their own money on the election:

https://electionbettingodds.co...

and Hillary's credibility which is in free fall?

You might as well start calling her "President Clinton", so you can get used to it. Call it aversion therapy.

http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

And just so you can get the bad news from conservative sites, too:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

https://electionbettingodds.co...

People may have forgotten that Bloomberg, a Trump hater, reported this activity.

Google itself, has had nearly weekly meetings with the Obama White House.

Google employees were Obama's 4th largest source of cash in 2008, and 3rd largest source in 2012.

More than 250 people have shuffled back-and-forth between the Obama administration and Google.

Massive centralized government is in the process of uniting with the political party of big government, and the multinational corporations who control communications and monitor the public. Those communications companies are running "fact checking" sites that rule opposing views as lies without any legal process or appeals, and frequently putting 10 to 20 times the emphasis on negative news for their opponents as on negative news for their allies. Start shining-up yer jack-boots folks.... we are becoming a fascist nation and it's a good idea to be on the side of the national socialists when they begin to assert full control - George Soros has said so - Google him.

This is why Trump is winning.

Er, what?

Every independent scientific poll has Clinton ahead by about 4-9%, and this is only popular vote. If you apply those numbers to the electoral college, Hillary wins comfortably.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

But of course the pro-Trump outlets will show you reader polls with Donald getting 90% of the vote, and stupid people seem to think this is real.
Don't be shocked when Hillary wins next month.

Are you seriously claiming, it is your sincere belief, Bill Clinton has never sexually assaulted anyone? Please, say so.

Right now the only allegation of sexual impropriety made against Bill Clinton that's been shown to be true is an affair with a consenting woman

Right now there are simply no such proven allegations against Trump. Zero — confession without hard evidence do not count. And it was investigated by the best minds in the business — the most they could find was a Florida model attending Trump's party, whom he has offered to change into a swimsuit. Wow, the nerve! It was so pathetic, it made some Democrats laugh.

And it certainly doesn't make his wife a criminal.

His wife is — credibly — accused of suppressing his victims' accusations. That is not merely immoral, but criminal too.

You're back again, commenting on that website '538' again?

OK, you don't like that one because "all the polls are skewed". Here, let me point you to a prediction/betting site run by conservative John Stossel:

https://electionbettingodds.co...

That one shows Hillary winning by over 170 electoral college votes. Or is that one also "skewed"? Maybe conservative site "Real Clear Politics" is more to your liking. Here is there election simulation:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

That one has Hillary winning by over 200 electoral college votes.

You pick 'em, Euler. And repeat after me: "There are no American tanks in Baghdad."

I'm not sure what polls you were looking at. It looks like 3 of the 5 polls for Sept 23 showed Hillary leading.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

It seems to depend on who you ask:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Liberal news organizations all see Clinton leading, while conservative news orgs see Trump winning. The real story is likely that they are pretty well tied. What I find most amazing is the third party numbers. Anything over double digits is considered extremely rare, and Johnson has consistently been posting double digits. For someone who can't name any world leaders, and doesn't even know where Aleppo is, that is pretty amazing.

This article indicates that Clinton almost invariably spent less than Sanders on TV ads: https://www.publicintegrity.or... isn't the only form of spending, but it is a big one.

It is worth reminding people that Clinton won the popular vote by several million votes. The popular vote total is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...!

I disagree with your belief that it is corrupt for an organisation to try to control who runs under its banner. The caucuses that Sanders did so well in are predicated on the belief that the engaged, core-members of the party should be able to decide what the party does; the superdelegates that Sanders urged to switch votes are based on the same premise.

Clinton won the popular vote and the superdelegate (elite vote) and therefore won the nomination. Now if Sanders had convinced the superdelegates to switch to him, and thereby overruled the popular vote, you may have a case that Sanders victory was illegitimate.

However, if this happened, I would not hesitate to "reward" Sanders in the general election because many of my policy preferences jibe with Sanders' and because Trump is—as the lady said—deplorable.

You know, I'll bet there are people who won't get that your post is sarcasm.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I do find it amazing that Johnson is polling in the double digits, if only he could get the magical 20% so he gets invited to the debates. That would make for some entertaining television.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Libertarians are currently polling around 10%, are you expecting them to fracture any day now?

I have seen no indication that independents are leaning Trumpward.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Latest Quinnipiac poll has Independents going for Trump 45-40.
Latest Reuters poll has Independents going for Trump 30-22.
As a reminder, Romney won the independent vote in 2012 50-45. Boring, milquetoast Mitt. Independents were 29% of the electorate that year. Do you really think that the number of independents will go DOWN this year? After Trump won more primary votes than any other Republican in history? After the kind of excitement and craziness we've seen on both sides of the aisle? Get the fuck out.

Yeah, there's going to be a landslide, alright. But its going to be completely opposite what you think.

Really? Slashdot is usually pretty well focused on science. Perhaps a poll done in a scientific manner would be good. For examples, refer to any of these polls which will give a sample size, the questions, demographics, and a description of the process used to survey. Real Clear Politics aggregates various polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.c... and Pew Research: http://www.pewresearch.org/ conducts many polls, then details the results.

There is much to like about the Trump campaign if you are Russian.

Trump has promised to look into lifting the sanctions that the U.S. has imposed against Russia for its military incursions in Ukraine.

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

He questioned whether the U.S. would defend its NATO allies in the event of a Russian attack and claimed that the alliance is “obsolete.”

An isolationist America would pose less of a threat to Russia’s ambitions in Europe and the Middle East.

On top of this, Putin likely holds a grudge against Clinton for this.

This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.

Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.

The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.

From the Rolling Stone report:

As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.

Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.

If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.

But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.

[...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.

[...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."

So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!

All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.

(I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)

And nothing will be done about it.

The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...

All this was noticed in May , and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.

Bernie got roughly 43 percent of the popular vote.

Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?

It gets better.

The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.

And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!

That's hilarious! :)

Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!

And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters swi

When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.

Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?

You reference to the NYT's pulitzer is too vague to determined just how false an equivalency you are attempting to draw.

The Democratic National Committee is not a government body. As such, I am not sure that "the people deserve to know" anything about its internal machinations.

But you'll still have to call him Mister President.

When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.

Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?