Slashdot Mirror


Russia Says it Was in Touch With Trump Campaign During Election (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a CNBC report: The Russian government was in touch with members of President-elect Donald Trump's campaign staff during the U.S. election campaign, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency on Thursday. "There were contacts," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. He did not give details. When asked whether these contacts would now intensify after Trump's election victory, Ryabkov said: "These working moments and follow-up on this or that matter will depend on the situation and the questions which face us. But we will of course continue this work after the elections." Defeated Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton accused Trump of being a "puppet" of President Vladimir Putin during the campaign, and U.S. officials said Russia had hacked into Democratic party emails, something Moscow denied. Trump has said he might meet Putin before his inauguration, but Putin's spokesman has said there are currently no plans for such a meeting.

72 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. Not a puppet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not a puppet. You're the puppet. You're the puppet.

    1. Re:Not a puppet. by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To roughly half of american voters, that is an absolute zinger of a comeback.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Not a puppet. by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      My wife's grandfather was a huge fan of that "conservative guy that comes on right after that damn commie Jew" before he passed. None of us had the heart to tell him it was all a farce.

  2. surprise surprise by dehachel12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    who did not see that coming ?

    1. Re:surprise surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there was something malicious going on, do you think they would really be out advertising it? Idiot.

      Of course Russia is going to want to reach out to the likely president-elect of the United States of America in order to start a working relationship.

    2. Re:surprise surprise by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet they didn't reach out to any of the other candidates, or in any of the other previous elections?

      Does "hacking their email" count as reaching out? ;)

      Considering the path Clinton was likely to set us upon, I wholeheartedly disagree that the Russians talking with Trump is a bad thing.

      Russia is a nuclear-armed big army nuke-sub having high technology former nigh-superpower that has accepted that they aren't going to be able to wipe us out (we WON the Cold War, remember?). It's good to be their friends, it's good to be talking to them.

  3. Before you act like this is so nefarious... by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just look at what China did with Clinton:

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china...

    But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.

    Oh, and dealing with other countries diplomatically instead of militarily is now equivalent to Nazism or something all of the sudden. Which is why everybody thought Obama was a Nazi when he was elected... right?

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by Jack9 · · Score: 2

      > Neither should you

      "should" is a word that indicates you might have lost the argument. Telling someone how to act "because", is not compelling.

      The crux of the race was - and - still - is, about corruption. Jon Stewart's tale of his time in Washington really resounded with me.
      Russia talking to the candidate they back (via wikileaks and probably other methods) is not surprising.

      I don't see Russia controlling Trump's policies nor Russia rigging the election, but influencing indirectly was a result of existing
      conditions Clinton caused. The Russians, if responsible for email hacks, simply gave more information to the US people.

      I do believe that if Trump had been attacked in a similar way, we would have seen bad business dealing (he is not all that great
      and certainly petulant) but being able to hide it is part of his charm and image. Clinton acting like she never does anything
      wrong came off as more distasteful hubris, which marginalized his.

      Understanding how we got the US election result, is part of dealing with the result.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    2. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Diplomatic sources in Beijing and Washington have confirmed that Beijing, aware of the high stakes for bilateral ties, has been following the election campaign closely and trying to maintain regular contact with both candidates, Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, through their campaign teams and other channels.

      Your point? Open relations with one of America's biggest trading partners is a lot different from secret contacts with an antagonistic power. Denying it through his campaign makes it look even worse.

      Between conspiracy with the country's adversaries and tapping the DNC, Trump seems to be doing his best to emulate Nixon. We'll see if it comes to the same end.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by tomhath · · Score: 2
      FTFA:

      Diplomatic sources in Beijing and Washington have confirmed that Beijing, aware of the high stakes for bilateral ties, has been following the election campaign closely and trying to maintain regular contact with both candidates, Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, through their campaign teams and other channels.

      Trump's staff was also in touch with China!!! And Mexico! I'll bet even Canada and New Jersey were in on it.

    4. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and dealing with other countries diplomatically instead of militarily is now equivalent to Nazism or something all of the sudden. Which is why everybody thought Obama was a Nazi when he was elected... right?

      I don't really want to get into your Democrat=wrong-think, Republican=right-think pissing contest. What I will say is that presidential candidates dealing diplomatically to Russia/China depends entirely on what was being said and promised. Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person and for all her faults I do not believe she'd make rash promises to anybody, especially if they affect the USA's extensive network of allies. Trump, on the other hand, is completely inexperienced in foreign policy dealings, he is an individual that is so impulsive he apparently cannot even be trusted with a Twitter account. So when it becomes known that he's been having talks with Vladimir Putin behind the backs of all of the USA's allies it gets people wondering what he promised the Russians without consulting them? ... unilateral lifting of sanctions? recognition of their annexation of the Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine in exchange for cooperation on ending the Syrian mess? A pledge not to defend the Baltic republics? Something even dumber than that, like dismantling NATO? Or did he simply have a friendly dinner with one of Putin's creatures over some New York deep dish pizza and discuss Golf? Point being that people are a lot less nervous about Hillary 'giving away the home-world' as it were than they are over Trump dong the same because after he promised to do the modern equivalent of pining a yellow star on every Muslim in the USA people basically think he's capable of anything.

    5. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you had actually read the real article that was the source of this story you would have seen that Russia... contacted the Clinton campaign too. Dumbass.

      I'm reminded of the naked hypocrisy when Reagan was running back in the day. Back then it was considered imperative (by leftists like you) that the President put the interests of the Soviet Union ahead of the U.S. because otherwise you were some type of war-monger.

      Flash forward and the new left-wing chant is that Trump is evil because he refuses to unilaterally nuke Russia.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    6. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by aliquis · · Score: 2

      Since Vladimir Putin is the best president in the world it's not weird that even if Trump was a Putin of him he'd still be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

      He'd be taught from the best.

      What a man. If only we had him.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      / etnopluralist libertarian nationalist Swede

    7. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I read your article. And TFA. And watched the video. Not saying you're a liar, but [citation needed].

      And being anti-war means taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent war, including standing up to expansionists. Appeasing Hitler didn't stop World War II, and tearing down NATO while Russia is annexing Europe's borders won't pacify Putin.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    8. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person and for all her faults I do not believe she'd make rash promises to anybody,

      I completely agree. All of Hillary's promises are carefully calculated to increase her power and wealth, and she plans that for the long term. Trump is too much of an idiot to be a fraud on Hillary's scale.

      because after he promised to do the modern equivalent of pining a yellow star on every Muslim in the USA people basically think he's capable of anything.

      Evil demagogues like you are what has caused registered Democrats like me to leave the party in disgust. If you want people like Trump to keep winning election after election, you just keep up that shit.

    9. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Actually, he provided a citation -- the linked article, which does NOT in fact say Russia was communicating with the Clinton campaign.

      So yes, he is a liar.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by flopsquad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Evil demagogue? You're saying this about GP and not Trump, am I getting this right? And you have no idea what GP is talking about? Here you go:

      GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"
      Trump: "No, not at all"

      That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance. In combination with the unconstitutional Muslim ban he proposed, and the... you know what, he's said so much fucked up shit just on this one topic that if you haven't bothered to educate yourself on it by now, I'm not going to waste my time. Here's a quarter, go fuck yourself.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    11. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      With progress, fewer and fewer people are needed to perform jobs. People need to either move on to something new or they'll be left behind. No business in their right mind would say, "Oh, I think we'll get rid of all this automation to hire more people."

      Don't think that this absolutely couldn't happen. We could, collectively as a society, if things got bad enough, decide that maybe a 2000s-era standard of living was better. A rejection of the idea that somehow, robots HAVE to be involved and we just... can't NOT use them. It's totally impossible!

      Granted, we have a long way to go before we'd be motivated to actually go that route. But don't think that things could NEVER get so bad that we wouldn't make that sort of decision.

      At least Hillary understood this since she was pushing for job training.
      I expect a lot of service jobs will also disappear as well as AI improves.
      The jobs will become more and more technical. Those not able to hack it will continue to be further left behind.

      Here's what actually happens, and has been happening for a number of years. This is important, because as much as the uninformed love to talk about how everyone who voted for Trump is a horrible racist, this really is what underpins Trump's support: when jobs move out of the country, they are gone. They are not replaced by newer, better jobs. When automation cuts 1/2 or more of a factory's employment, there are no better jobs available for those people. Your factory worker of 20 years ago is an underemployed Wal-Mart greeter today.

      The jobs will become more and more technical. Those not able to hack it will continue to be further left behind.

      What jobs? More technical, but much fewer and further between. That is, after all, the ENTIRE reason to automate. How many system administrators do you think we need? How many app authors? You're talking about the elimination of the service sector along with the manufacturing sector. What sort of "job training" could possibly benefit them? What other sectors are going to open up to accept a hundred million people? Nursing and elder care? Or will those go the automation route as well? Robot repair? Perhaps. How many repairmen will we need? You have to be specific here, you can't say that we don't know what these future jobs will but that you're sure the advances will make them possible. That hasn't been true for years. Trump's election came from the anger that has been building over lack of jobs and underemployment. Saving banks while losing jobs. All to give a false sense of prosperity. People fed up with getting outsourced or automated out of a career.

      30 years from now, do YOU think you are actually going to be able to outcompete the hungry and motivated and exploitable twentysomethings who will be fighting like mad for the incredibly small number of jobs like yours? Is your 55-year-old auto assembly-line worker going to be ABLE to turn around and learn .NET for the career of the future? Today, most people are not going to be capable of doing these jobs. Do not make the mistake of thinking that they are just going to passively sit back and be ok with getting left "further behind." That you know, they'll just be fine with starving or dying in a ditch. They will, at some point, revolt, like the underclass often does when there is a society of large group of people with few prospects, and a small upper class. But you know, maybe in the future the automated robot police force can cut them down without any losses from the upper class, then we can really live in a dystopian future. But hey, that sort of a future is totally worth automating all of our jobs away.

      It's the whole underpinning behind the burgeoning "basic income" movement. There are a big number of flaws with that too, but it we can't figure it out, the future will be violent and blood-soaked. Actual people are not going to quietly accept being "left behind."

    12. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Are you being serious!? To not know this is to not know the origination story of the 2016 Trump campaign or the driving force behind his wanting to become president

      Oh, you mean he treated Obama pretty much like Hillary Clinton treated Obama? You mean one of the many non-issues that the Democratic propaganda machine uses to demonize opponents, first by implying (with plausible deniability) that Obama was foreign, then blaming Republicans for the whole thing?

      In any case, you don't seem to understand what the "birther" controversy was about. It wasn't about Obama's actual citizenship (which was a simple legal matter), it was about Obama's foreign vision for America was foreign, that of a European social welfare state and critical race theory. He articulated that in 2012 in "The Life of Julia", something so offensive to people that even MSNBC ripped it apart and Obama has now removed it from his website.

      Thanks. Trump established this standard for the president and two days ago the Americans (at least 18% of them) validated it.

      People were tired of the racism, divisiveness, and bigotry spread by Obama and Clinton; and they were tired of their foreign wars, constitutional violations, and crony capitalism. They were tired of politicians that believed it was justified to lie to the American people in order to implement policies Americans reject. They were tired of the broken promises. That's why so many voters voted for an inexperienced, rude loudmouth over a bigoted, racist, corrupt liar.

      It will probably be impossible to ever convince people like you that your ideas are hurting people; but what the rest of us can do with the 18% of the population that voted for Clinton is to communicate to them in no uncertain terms that we find their bigoted, racist, and selfish views deplorable, and that they shouldn't fool themselves into believing that they have the moral high ground.

      Please tell me you are not an American voter and that you did not vote for Trump.

      I used to be a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama in 2008. I didn't find either Trump or Hillary to be an acceptable choice in this election.

      I could never have voted for Hillary, if not for any other reason than because of her long standing opposition to gay marriage and her subsequent lies about it. But, hey, what's a little homophobia and lying to you, as long as you get free stuff and can wallow in your self-righteousness, right?

    13. Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      So I guess your "pretty much" is the difference between Hillary appointing supreme court justices

      We were talking about how "Trump treated Obama", and I pointed out that Trump treated Obama like Hillary treated Obama.

      I guess I don't understand the part where you are willing to defend someone you are not willing to vote for. . .

      I'm not "defending" Trump; the elections are over. I'm explaining to you why the messages Democratic strategists concocted didn't work.

      bigoted: Exactly WHICH group of people am I bigot of again (don't think that word means what you think it does)?

      "bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." That pretty much describes you: you are utterly intolerant of anybody who doesn't toe the progressive party line.

      ignorant: You calling me ignorant implies you know more about this topic than me. Your posts make it clear that you just checked out this election and have no context to understand what is happening or how you have betrayed your own ideologies.

      See "bigot" above. You have no idea how much time I have invested in finding out about this or past elections.

      selfish pricks: Again, please elaborate. Some one points out the flaws of your arguments and you resort to name calling.

      Clinton's support is rooted in her advocacy of economic redistribution in areas like healthcare, education, welfare, etc.; that is, people support her because they expect monetary benefits and expect others to be taxed to pay for them. "Selfish pricks" describes that pretty well.

      You may not have voted for Trump but you certainly act like him.

      See "bigot" above.

      Hillary appointing supreme court justices that will protect gay marriage and Trump appointing justices that will overturn gay marriage

      Like the Democratic strategists, you think you can divide voters into blocs and then push their buttons at will. Yes, I'm a gay man and I'm happy that we have gay marriage. No, I'm not a one issue voter. And, no, I don't believe for a moment that Hillary gives a fuck about whether the justices she appoints support gay marriage or not. She will throw gays and lesbians under the bus if it advances her political interests, like she has always done.

      Trump is president because of people like you, people who made the Democratic party such a bigoted and corrupt place that even gay immigrants like me left in disgust. Democrats won't come back until they kick people like you out.

  4. Trump elected by no-shows by OffTheLip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what happens when close to 50% of eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.

    1. Re:Trump elected by no-shows by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      Wrong, Trump strategy was to turn areas by appealing to no-shows to make them show. Specifically, middle class not living in cities are what turned the election.

    2. Re:Trump elected by no-shows by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he really didn't get out the vote; Trump's vote count was in line with the losers of the last few elections. His strategy in the primary and the general was to drag the whole thing down so far into the mud that most people were too disillusioned to vote. Low turnout favors the 'fear/anger/hate' candidate.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  5. Not only that... by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trump was in touch with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. I saw it on television!

  6. Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's what they really had to say:

    Russia said that it talked with the teams of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the U.S. presidential election as part of routine outreach during a campaign.
    Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the Russian embassy in the U.S. held talks with the Trump camp that “were on a sufficient, responsible level.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in an e-mail that she was “not aware” of any meetings by campaign representatives with Russian diplomats.
    Ryabkov said the talks were “part of routine everyday work.” There was also “sporadic” contact with the Clinton team, though it was “not always productive,” he said. Calls to members of Clinton’s former campaign team for comment weren’t immediately returned.

    1. Re:Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get out of here with your "facts" and "whole story". We don't want that kind of thing here. We just want to rage against the world right now.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bernie would have met with them twice as much. Or he wouldn't have met with them at all -- whichever one is the good one.

    3. Re:Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Russia said that it talked with the teams of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the U.S. presidential election as part of routine outreach during a campaign.
      Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the Russian embassy in the U.S. held talks with the Trump camp that “were on a sufficient, responsible level.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in an e-mail that she was “not aware” of any meetings by campaign representatives with Russian diplomats.
      Ryabkov said the talks were “part of routine everyday work.” There was also “sporadic” contact with the Clinton team, though it was “not always productive,” he said. Calls to members of Clinton’s former campaign team for comment weren’t immediately returned.

      In other words while Trump's campaign worked with Russia "routinely", they contacted the Clinton campaign but they weren't friendly or cooperative.

      Just imagine what reaction would have been like if the shoe had been on the other foot, if Clinton's campaign worked extensively with Russia during the election but had been rebuffed by Trump.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. He was also in touch with France's Marine LePen by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Big deal.

  8. Re:Congrats idiots by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too late. I'm already there. And in Murica we call it a "basement" you damn foreigner!

  9. Russian moles! They're annoying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Moles are bad enough, but when they're Russian, they're drinking vodka while they tunnel and they are all over the place!

    Then they pop out of their tunnels, puke all over the lawn, sing really loud and off key, and back into the tunnel zigging and zagging making a huge mess!

    At least the Mexican moles keep it to just the holidays - although their music can be obnoxious!

  10. Re:Congrats idiots by dan_s28 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope we up deportations. I think we could use spare space on container ships after we unload the shit from China, fill it up with foreigners and whiny protesters, ship em out. If they get mouthy when feeding - throw em overboard.

  11. A leader who defuses the situation? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what happens when close to 50% of eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.

    We get a leader who tries to calm and reassure a potential dangerous adversary?

    This partisanship is blinding you to reality. Clinton and Obama were steadily ratcheting up the fear and blame on Russia. They were building moral cover to justify a prolonged campaign of sanctions and possibly war.

    It got so bad that Julian Assange publicly stated that Russia was *not* the source of the Podesta E-mails. He *never* gives out information about his sources, that he would do this indicates that he felt there was some danger.

    This was all happening over the past two months, and you can't remember it?

    Contacting Russia and saying "relax, if I get elected we can work out our problems through diplomacy" is a good thing.

    1. Re:A leader who defuses the situation? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the contrary, Russia's actions have proven they are INCREDIBLY rational. They waited until the US (the only power that could legitimately threaten them) was distracted before taking a small step (Crimea). After seeing how that shook out (US did nothing but wag a finger), they moved to the next step. Same result. You might not agree (nor do I) with their goals, but the way they are moving forward is incredibly rational, well-planned, and measured.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:A leader who defuses the situation? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Annexing neighbors and posturing militarily has to have some sort of a reaction other than "let's talk it out".

      No, it really doesn't. It's none of our business. We have no right to interfere with the actions of other countries. And that's what it is: interference. You want to have a sovereign country? Fine. Make sure you can defend it or otherwise exert effective leverage sufficient to maintain your sovereignty. Otherwise, someone is going to take it from you or otherwise ruin your day -- and we -- the US -- definitely shouldn't have to be the one to guarantee your borders. That's your job.

      This whole "US is the world's policeman" business is insane. And the claim that we actually have significant national interests in 99% of these venues isn't much better.

      Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want. We can squash them like bugs if they try anything. And we should. Other than that, there's an awful lot of stuff we need to be paying attention to within our borders that we are not.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:A leader who defuses the situation? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      You want to have a sovereign country? Fine. Make sure you can defend it or otherwise exert effective leverage sufficient to maintain your sovereignty. Otherwise, someone is going to take it from you or otherwise ruin your day

      That's not how civilized people behave. If that's how you behave, you're part of the problem.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:A leader who defuses the situation? by citylivin · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want."

      "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

      History repeats too much to have such a myopic attitude about world affairs.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    5. Re:A leader who defuses the situation? by quax · · Score: 2

      Yes, the Russians are very systematic about it. Their goal all along was to shatter the Western alliance from within, and if possibly the United States themselves through internal division. The former goal is within reach. NATO at this point is but a faded paper contract.

      A major German conservative newspapers already speculated before the election that a Trump victory may mean that the country has to acquire nukes. Unprecedented in a country where the nuclear anti-proliferation sentiment is strong across the entire political spectrum.

  12. Who you calling "idiots"? by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    You just elected a Russian mole.

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

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

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

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

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. Re:Congrats idiots by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    No, he is Muslim born in Africa. Read it on the Internet.

  14. Re:How many times does someone have to lie? by bfpierce · · Score: 2

    We just elected a pathological liar supported by people spreading completely made up news through social media. So, yeah?

  15. Re: Congrats idiots by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't like Goldman Sachs? Then by all means don't this second go and google who's the leading contender for Trump's treasury secretary.

    What, did you actually convince yourself that the billionaire who literally plates everything around him in gold was a "man of the people"? If so:

    ***Check out these awesome magic beans!!!!!***

    --
    It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  16. Whoa by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The truth that nearly half (currently 47%) of the population of the United States are deep down a mix, of racist, sexist, hate-filled scumbags and uneducated morons too ignorant to see Trump for what he is.

    47% if the voters. not 47% of the population.

    127 million people voted.
    The US population is estimated at 324,227,000 in 2016

    47% of the voters is 59.6 million people.
    47% of the population of the US is 152.3 million people. That's more people than voted in total!

    So really, the election told us that 18% of the people next to us in the checkout line are likely to be Trump voters. Some of them aren't even of voting age, so you know they didn't participate in the dumbing down of the presidency (even past the Bush years... it's astonishing, really. The tyranny of the Gaussian come home to roost. Democracy at work: any two idiots outvote a genius. In an environment where geniuses are rare.)

    Just saying. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Whoa by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      You have to account for voting age population and then only count the legal voters, which is about 207M, which jibes with roughly 74M being under 18 and ineligible potential voters.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Whoa by wyHunter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists. I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President. Perhaps the real problem is... the left!

    3. Re:Whoa by bfpierce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's poor uneducated people on both the left and right, and ignoring the violence by members of the KKK (and their ilk) over the recent years is kind of insane. In my area most people are conservative trump supporters, so most crime is done by, *gasp* conservative trump supporters.

      It's been reported on, maybe you just put on the blinders.

      The fact that this is 'insightful' is also kind of insane.

    4. Re:Whoa by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, point taken. What's really shocking is that a minority voted in a demagogue. We can only hope the checks and balances in the Constitution work in the people's favor over the next 4 years, and hope like hell we get a candidate that's actually someone we can vote for next time vs the crap choices over at least the last 5 elections.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Whoa by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

      And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists.

      I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President. Perhaps the real problem is... the left!

      Did you miss the 9 dead killed by avowed racist Dylann Roof?

    6. Re:Whoa by rmckeethen · · Score: 2

      And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists.

      I assume you're talking about the anti-Trump protests, yes? So far, they seem to be relatively peaceful. A quick summary from the linked article:

      1. Nearly 2,000 protesters gathered in downtown Chicago chanting "Not my president" and "F*** Trump" outside Trump International Hotel & Tower. Police said they arrested five people mostly for obstructing traffic and criminal trespass.
      2. In New York, thousands of protesters could be heard chanting and banging drums as they marched past Rockefeller Center up Sixth Avenue... At least 65 people were arrested, NBC New York reported, quoting police. Most of the arrests appeared to be for disorderly conduct.
      3. More than 100 people shut down a major highway through downtown Los Angeles Wednesday night NBC Los Angeles reported. As of midnight local time (3 a.m. ET Thursday), 13 people were arrested.
      4. Police said more than 7,000 people mobilized in Oakland, California, where tear gas and flash-bang grenades were deployed. Bottles, rocks and firecrackers were thrown at officers, reported NBC Bay Area. Thirty people were arrested on charges including vandalism and unlawful assembly, and three officers were hurt.

      NBC's article mentions many other protests, but the above were the ones I could find where arrests were reported.

      I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President.

      You're not serious, are you? Come on -- must I really demonstrate that the Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazis and skinheads are violent, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office? Fine. Here are recent examples of violence related to these groups:

      1. At a June 26th 2016 Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, CA, Six Klan members were arrested after using a flagpole to stab protesters.
      2. On June 8th, 2014, Jerad Miller and his wife Amanda killed two police officers and left a swastika on one of their victims.
      3. Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., founder of the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, killed 3 at a Jewish community center in April of 2014, including a 14-year-old boy.

      And that list above isn't comprehensive, nor does it cover incidents beyond the last two years. A complete list a violence associated with the Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazis and skinheads within the last 8 years would likely fill volumes, but I assume I've made my point.

      Perhaps the real problem is... the left!

      You're welcome to think what you like, but if you'd dare to take just a minute to step outside of the Fox News conservative echo chamber, you might discover that folks on the left are not nearly as bad as you've been told.

    7. Re:Whoa by XXongo · · Score: 3, Informative

      And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists.

      Nope. Right and left. Crazies on both sides.

      I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President.

      Then you haven't been paying attention. Look here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...

      "Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement...
      "“The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”"

      More:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/01/why-racists-burn-black-churches/
      http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766
      http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/arson-churches-north-carolina-georgia/396881/
      http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/03/500496061/fbi-investigating-burning-of-black-church-painted-with-vote-trump

    8. Re: Whoa by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize all those powers et al were given to a Republican president (W) by a Republican Congress under what's probably one of the worst laws passed by any Congress.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  17. Re: Congrats idiots by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    But he wears a trucker hat with "Make America Great Again!". I'm confused. Am I going to get a jerb and move into a new double-wide trailer or not?

  18. Re:Congrats idiots by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  19. Re:Congrats idiots by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Judging from what they look like (as well as the looks of the offspring), he gets a great return on his purchase!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  20. One Question Worth Asking by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    It's voter turn out that ruled the day. Why didn't the Democrats vote?

  21. Moo Moo Moo by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dude, you are udderly ridiculous. Seriously. Don't you feel like you have a steak in this coversation? It be hooves you to take a more serious approach to the forum, no matter what you've herd elsewhere. It's time to stop milking this for all it's worth and get with the program, before the mods decide to put you out to pasture, see?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  22. A different position by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Instead of jumping to conspiracy, how about Russia reaching out to say that they were not involved in the hacks? Considering the amount of venom Hillary was sending to Russia, the threats of war by Joe Biden, indirect action by Clinton claiming she would establish no-fly zones over Syria, perhaps Russia was simply saying "Hey, we didn't do that and are keeping our distance."

    There is certainly a different position to be had by a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests, which Trump was accused of but Bill Clinton actually did.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:A different position by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests, which Trump was accused of but Bill Clinton actually did.

      I suppose that depends on your definition of 'actually.' Checking Politifact, this claim does not hold true.

      Per an article in Fortune magazine in October 2015 that traced both the Clintons' tax returns to estimate their net worth:

      On the low end, the Clintons reported assets of $11.3 million. On the high end, they might have as much as $52.7 million. The couple listed no liabilities.

      How is it that Bill Clinton 'actually' accepted HUNDREDS of millions of dollars from foreign interests, yet he only has assets totaling as much as $53 million?

      This is a classic example of the disruption that Trump has brought to the political process.

      Unrestrained fiction presented as facts to smear opponents requires an update or replacement to the term "truthiness."

    2. Re:A different position by mic4521 · · Score: 2

      This is foolishly untrue and not posted with a source. Here's the result of googling "Clinton foundation spending". It's based on the fact that ~20% of the funds of the Clinton foundation go to direct grants, 60-70% are for funded projects like building warehouses for farmers, job training, purchasing medication etc. and 10-20% is overhead. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

    3. Re:A different position by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Informative

      6% of the Foundation funds goes to charitable works, 90% goes to paychecks and benefits.

      This is absolutely false, and another shining example of an untrue "news" story that so many people took as fact. Only 6% of the foundation's funds go to grants to other charities, which is where that number on the tax filings came from. (Speaking of tax returns... But I digress.) The foundation does a lot of its own charitable work out of its own funds. Those funds aren't given as grants to other charities, so they don't appear on IRS Form 990, Line 13.

      Let me phrase this another way. If you raise $100, and you donate $6 to the Red Cross, and you spend $82 on food for homeless people, you didn't "only" give 6% to charity. You gave 88% to charity. The actual numbers for the Clinton foundation are closer to 88% charity, 12% overhead.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  23. Re:Congrats idiots by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Congrats idiots in the Democratic party. Trump's election is your fault: you put up a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent loser as a presidential candidate. Don't complain that voters turned away in disgust.

  24. Re:Congrats idiots by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The truth that nearly half (currently 47%) of the population of the United States are deep down a mix, of racist, sexist, hate-filled scumbags and uneducated morons too ignorant to see Trump for what he is.

    Do you KNOW anyone who voted for Trump ? Have you talked to any of them ? Chances are, they're a lot like me. Yes, I voted for Trump. I had the choice between a double-decker shit sandwich, and a regular shit sandwich. I chose less shit.

    But either way, I knew I was getting a shit sandwich. . .

  25. Re: Congrats idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Trump is a businessman, unlike you, unaccomplished nothingness chewing on a piece of joint and having no clue where to start fixing economy, except complain when others try

  26. Re:Congrats idiots by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > But either way, I knew I was getting a shit sandwich. . .

    Everyone did. Canada offers its condolences.

    FYI we have five parties with members in the house and an independent. Over the last 25 years I've voted for 4 of them. Having a *real* selection results in a whole less nose-holding when you go to the poles.

    Which makes the whole Gary Johnson debacle a nice scoop of shit on top of that sandwich. Ugh, my condolences, again.

  27. Exactly this, all day long, 100% by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

    Um, do you not understand just about everything Trump did was equally staged? He knows how Television works.

    Yes, exactly precisely this. The man has been in front of a TV camera for decades. He's a reality TV star. He knows how to make a false drama engaging. He's very good at it. It doesn't matter if anything he said was true or not, it was entertaining! Who cares if they don't do abortions in the 9th month? Who cares if we've only found about a few dozen actual cases of voter fraud? Play it up! Make it dramatic and absolutely nobody will care.

    America, you just elected this guy.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  28. Re:Trump vote = fuck you to dismissing whites. by bfpierce · · Score: 2

    Spend less time worrying about who you vote for and your skin color and write a better resume.

  29. Re:Uranium One and Clinton McCarthyism. by larkost · · Score: 3, Informative

    Clinton did not sign off, the State Department did, as did 8 other Federal departments. The person at the State Department who was in charge of it has expressly said that Clinton was never involved in that discussion, and never expressed any opinions on it, as the process was not important or controversial enough to warrant it. And while it did wind up with a Russian company owning a good chunk of the Uranium mines in North America (primarily in Canada), there are export restrictions that prevent any of the product mined there from going to Russia (among most every place).

    And she and her close friends did not benefit financially, the accusation is that it was the Clinton Foundation (a charitable organization) that got the money. So far there have been some vague accusations that "the Clintons used the Foundation as their personal piggy bank", but no case of that ever happening has come to light. The Foundation is regularly audited, and that would have shown up by now. The Foundation is generally accepted as being a very good user of its money in doing good around the world.

    So explain to me how something she was not involved in, and did not benefit financially from personally was somehow a strike against her.

  30. Re: Congrats idiots by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump is a businessman, unlike you, unaccomplished nothingness chewing on a piece of joint

    Trump's steps to business success:

    1. Be born really rich.
    2. ???
    3. Profit

  31. Re:Congrats idiots by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ^mod parent up

    this is true...Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had to quit because of ties with Russian Mobsters: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/...

    Idiots are to blame for Trump's victory...all kinds of idiots across the political spectrum contributed along the way, starting with idiot Democrats who voted for Hillary over Bernie....up to the idiot Republicans for being Republican...and of course let's not forget the idiot journalists of the MSM

    Idiots are to blame

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  32. Church Burnings- not new, not uncommon by XXongo · · Score: 4, Informative

    What? Several black churches were burned to the ground and N** sprayed painted everywhere. The KKK's brand of racism is alive and well.

    You know, it's quite a coincidence that these attacks only occur during Presidential elections and only when Democrats are having a hard time 'motivating' black voters tiger to the polls and vote...

    Except that burning down African-American churches is not something that only occurs during presidential elections. In fact, it happens all the time. We just notice it more during elections.

    Here, for example are some stories from early 2015: http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...
    and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
    and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
    and https://www.splcenter.org/hate...

  33. The 6% thing has been thoroughly debunked by Brannon · · Score: 2

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
    6% is what is paid out in external grants, the Clinton Foundation does most of its work via internal staff.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

    "Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
    We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
    We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
    — Robert Farley"

    1. Re:The 6% thing has been thoroughly debunked by s.petry · · Score: 2

      The 90% for payroll and benefits is directly from their tax forms. Going to magical money not in the ledgers as an attempt to claim altruism is simply sad. Comparing that to the Red Cross which spends about 50% on actual recipients is disturbing. I have no time for propagandists and/or trolls.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.