Russia Says it Was in Touch With Trump Campaign During Election (cnbc.com) 469
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.
Not a puppet. (Score:5, Funny)
Not a puppet. You're the puppet. You're the puppet.
Re:Not a puppet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this tagged funny? I am not laughing...
Exactly this, all day long, 100% (Score:3)
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!
surprise surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they didn't reach out to any of the other candidates, or in any of the other previous elections?
What the hell are you even talking about? Every candidate that runs for PM, President, hell even some that run for premier are in contact with a variety of leaders. I guess it's true then, the Israelis control the US. After Hillary, Romney and Obama were in contact with them during their presidential bids.
Give your head a fucking shake.
Re:surprise surprise (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Except that it could be a violation of the Logan Act [wikipedia.org].
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
At least they seem to advertise some of it.
The Guardian: [theguardian.com]
Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully those who kept saying it was nothing but lies will fully understand the depths they've sunk this country to by electing a Russian mole.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Before you act like this is so nefarious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at what China did with Clinton:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china... [scmp.com]
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.
No, it is always evil when a president, at any time (before or after their presidency), conspires with foreign governments to defraud the American public.
Clinton lost and is now irrelevant to the discussion of the current state of corruption in our government. Trump now gets to face the public alone on the topic of presidential corruption and can no longer use the "but she is worse" argument. Neither should you.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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 exist
Re: (Score:3)
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
A different position (Score:3)
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
Re:A different position (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose that depends on your definition of 'actually.' Checking Politifact [politifact.com], this claim does not hold true.
Per an article in Fortune magazine in October 2015 [politifact.com] that traced both the Clintons' tax returns to estimate their net worth:
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."
The 6% thing has been thoroughly debunked (Score:3)
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 financi
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A different position (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 [charitywatch.org].
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
We were talking about how "Trump treated Obama", and I pointed out that Trump treated Obama like Hillary treated Obama.
I'm not "defending" Trump; the elections are over. I'm explaining to you why the messages Democratic strategists concocted didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.
Yes. You definitely do understand!
Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... (Score:5, 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 [politico.com] and tapping the DNC [wikipedia.org], Trump seems to be doing his best to emulate Nixon. We'll see if it comes to the same end.
Re: (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 unilat
Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Evil demagogue
Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (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?... [youtube.com]
/ etnopluralist libertarian nationalist Swede
Trump elected by no-shows (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The last time voter turnout was over 65% was in 1908, and it hasn't been over 60% since 1968. What's really ironic? After the Voting Rights Act and the repeal of the Jim Crow laws removed obstacles to voting, participation/turnout still has declined. It usually hovers around the low 50s for presidential, and lower for the congressional mid term elections. 2008 was a high point, with ~57%.
A leader who defuses the situation? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
You do of course recognize that Russia isn't some rational diplomatic actor at the moment right?
Annexing neighbors and posturing militarily has to have some sort of a reaction other than "let's talk it out".
Re:A leader who defuses the situation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 acros
Re:A leader who defuses the situation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:A leader who defuses the situation? (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I don't think it's particularly wise to take anything Julian Assange says at face value. He's in his own corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton and Obama were steadily ratcheting up the fear and blame on Russia.
That worked particularly well on the Ukrainians. They really bought into Obama/Clinton's fear-mongering. Don't know what they were so worried about - Russia's peaceful now.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have the wrong idea about Assange. He's either in the Kremlin's pocket or has his own (non-truth-related) agenda. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]
Without any evidence, the only group he defends during the Panama Papers scandal was Russia.
Russia needs to have sanctions against it. They have literally been invading their neighbors and taking their land. Should there not be
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Trump elected by no-shows (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
And your comment has me thinking you're actually buying into Clnton's McCarthyism -- which I would have believed 30 years ago, but not now. It's silly that it has even made it this far in this day and age.
Might be true (Score:2)
Might not be. Might not mean anything even if it is true; just sending a couple of unsolicited emails could be "in touch." Russia is going to see an advantage in sowing doubt about Trump regardless of the truth.
Not only that... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what they really had to say: [bloomberg.com]
Re:Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you have a way to connect your video into the discussion of infomation trasnsfer between Russia and Trump, but I fail to see the connection.
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion in this sub-thread is "don't read political spin, it makes you stupid".
You seem to believe "my team's spin isn't stupid". It is. Everyone's team's spin is stupid. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for a political candidate to pick up a negative story about his opponent and run with it, even if it is wrong. If you think that is evidence that Trump is a puppet of Russia, you are drinking the cool-aid. He might be a Russian mole.... but picking up a story from some obscure paper that fi
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion in this sub-thread is "don't read political spin, it makes you stupid".
Indeed. And Newsweek ('some obscure paper' as you said.), had an interesting article that goes against the political spin you quoted. It is not only reporters who spin. One might even spin in the comments, inventing opponents for other commenters. I sincerely wish that Trump does well. And I really really wish he will have reliable information sources.
Besides, I don't see how anyone can credit Trump with being smart enough to pull off some grand conspiracy to coordinate with the Russians. From what I can tell he's too dumb to make toast.
I guess I don't read enough tinfoil stuff as this is the first time I've seen even a mention about some grand conspiracy. His intelligence I have seen questio
He was also in touch with France's Marine LePen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium One and Clinton McCarthyism. (Score:2, Insightful)
This whole Russian Meme is just silly and needs to be put back in its dusty cold-war
Re:Uranium One and Clinton McCarthyism. (Score:4, 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.
So? (Score:2)
Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."
Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you "
Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
And Mr Medvedev finishes: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04... [nytimes.com]
The only thing I like about Trump (Score:2)
Stopping the new cold war, giving up the pointless protests over the crimea, letting Russia risk their lives in Syria -- it's all good. Constructive ties with Russia is just about the only potential positive I can see in Trump's presidency, if I can buy that it'll last.
Unfortunately, what I fear is that that the buddy-buddy relationship with Putin will not last long. At some point, two macho buffoons with egos that large are going to clash over something and want to fight. It can turn very quickly and very
One Question Worth Asking (Score:3)
Russian moles! They're annoying! (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!
Who you calling "idiots"? (Score:3, Informative)
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:
Re: Who you calling "idiots"? (Score:2)
You seemed upset in the first place, apparently in response to an obvious attempt at trolling by the Russian government.
Who was it saying a few weeks ago that the Russians were obviously trying to destabilize our political system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Congrats idiots (Score:5, 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/... [cnn.com]
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
Re:Congrats idiots (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whoa (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 [nbcnews.com]. A quick summary from the linked article:
Re:Whoa (Score:4, 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... [nytimes.com]
"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
Church Burnings- not new, not uncommon (Score:5, Informative)
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... [theatlantic.com]
and https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
and https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
and https://www.splcenter.org/hate... [splcenter.org]
Re:Congrats idiots (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.
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. . .
Re:Congrats idiots (Score:4, 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.
Re: Congrats idiots (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just like I did 8 years ago. (And I didn't even vote for Obama.)
So why not 4 years ago? I'm pretty sure I remember people being as vocally upset over Obama's 2nd term as they were for the first.
Also, you never seem to vote for the winner, so if you are eligible and do vote, don't you ever feel disenfranchised?
Re: Congrats idiots (Score:5, 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!!!!!***
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Spend less time worrying about who you vote for and your skin color and write a better resume.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust is Paramount. Or Lucasfilm, not sure (Score:2)
No, he should be okay. He isn't a judge of Mexican ancestry, so I'm sure we can trust him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We just elected a pathological liar supported by people spreading completely made up news through social media. So, yeah?
Moo Moo Moo (Score:5, 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?