Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Perhaps you will accept it from Reuters then?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-trump-idUSKBN1351RJ

LOL. I'm sure the Russians were enjoying their direct access to the administration via her not secured server.

 

[Andreas2]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Read trump's latest tweets, if you already didn't realize the president elect is clearly INSANE!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

Voters ... what have you done?

 

5 hours ago, Silurian said:

Ah, let's add anti-1st Amendment to the child-president's list. He is against flag burning. Uh oh, better lock up all those poor American Legion members for burning flags! Oh and the Boy Scout troops as well since they also burn old American flags as proper disposal.

 

Trump ignores First Amendment, suggests jail time for flag-burning

http://us.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html

 

BTW per the American Legion: "The approved method of disposing of unserviceable Flags has long been that they be destroyed by burning, but no ritual for such destruction or ceremony in connection therewith has been adopted..."

 

Ha, ha, you just got trolled, big time! But don't be ashamed too much, as it was done by the Master himself, and you are not alone.

 

Trump Trolls Media into Savaging Hillary Clinton

... In essence, Trump has effectively baited the media into criticizing Clinton as she continues pushing for voter recounts with Jill Stein, despite the fact that recount deadlines have already past in several states.

 

And the really funny thing is: This revelation is brought to you by ... Infowars.com

Priceless!

 

If a person is able to so masterfully educate his critics about their own champion's mindset... He is 100% fit to be President!

[Andaman Al]

14 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

 

 

Ha, ha, you just got trolled, big time! But don't be ashamed too much, as it was done by the Master himself, and you are not alone.

 

Trump Trolls Media into Savaging Hillary Clinton

... In essence, Trump has effectively baited the media into criticizing Clinton as she continues pushing for voter recounts with Jill Stein, despite the fact that recount deadlines have already past in several states.

 

And the really funny thing is: This revelation is brought to you by ... Infowars.com

Priceless!

 

If a person is able to so masterfully educate his critics about their own champion's mindset... He is 100% fit to be President!

And you believe anything that is written on infowars.com?  They are making any excuse to cover for Trumps idiocy and to keep convincing the trailer park supporters to keep the faith. The lunatics are running the asylum.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Andreas2]

"Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President" says the guy who claims that he didn't know anything about Mrs. Clinton's private email server.

 

Obama was in on Hillary’s Emails Huma Abedin, tells FBI

It is becoming painfully clear why Obama would never indict Hillary and may provide her a pardon to protect himself. Abedin told FBI agents she “had to tell the White House” every time Hillary Clinton changed her email address to make sure Obama’s device would accept it.

 

What? Barry a liar?

But at least Barry knows who is fit to succeed him... But, maybe, this was also a lie.

[Andreas2]

15 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

28 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

 

 

Ha, ha, you just got trolled, big time! But don't be ashamed too much, as it was done by the Master himself, and you are not alone.

 

Trump Trolls Media into Savaging Hillary Clinton

... In essence, Trump has effectively baited the media into criticizing Clinton as she continues pushing for voter recounts with Jill Stein, despite the fact that recount deadlines have already past in several states.

 

And the really funny thing is: This revelation is brought to you by ... Infowars.com

Priceless!

 

If a person is able to so masterfully educate his critics about their own champion's mindset... He is 100% fit to be President!

And you believe anything that is written on infowars.com?  The lunatics are running the asylum.

 

Then read this, but I won't hold my breath: S.1911 - Flag Protection Act of 2005

Ignorance is strength. Right?

Just continue reading exclusively the Fake News (approved by the Ministry of Truth, a.k.a Minitrue) of your trust - Nothing to see or learn here for you. Stay strong, resist the facts!

And continue calling others lunatics - Which is also a typical, impressive sign of strength.

[iReason]

Trump Will Violate DC Hotel Lease By Taking Office, Say Experts

 

"Among Donald Trump's many potential conflicts of interest, one stands out: His organization's lease with the federal government to redevelop and run a luxury hotel in the iconic Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol. How, critics wondered, could President Trump become his own landlord?"

 

"A provision in Trump's lease with the General Services Administration states that "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom..."

 

"Trump has dismissed concerns about his business ties, telling the New York Times,

"The president can't have a conflict of interest."  

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-will-violate-dc-hotel-lease-taking-office-say-experts-n689146

 

Whatta doof. 

Reminds me of that cretin Nixon:

(One of the Huckster's heroes)

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by iReason

[Pimay1]

13 hours ago, Silurian said:

Ah, let's add anti-1st Amendment to the child-president's list. He is against flag burning. Uh oh, better lock up all those poor American Legion members for burning flags! Oh and the Boy Scout troops as well since they also burn old American flags as proper disposal.

 

Trump ignores First Amendment, suggests jail time for flag-burning

http://us.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html

 

BTW per the American Legion: "The approved method of disposing of unserviceable Flags has long been that they be destroyed by burning, but no ritual for such destruction or ceremony in connection therewith has been adopted..."

Critics on Tuesday morning were quick to pan President-elect Trump's proposal to make burning the American flag illegal, but soon after a bill began circulating on social media that Hillary Clinton introduced in 2006 to do exactly the same thing.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clintons-bill-to-criminalize-flag-burning/article/2608366

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

"Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President" says the guy who claims that he didn't know anything about Mrs. Clinton's private email server.

 

Obama was in on Hillary’s Emails Huma Abedin, tells FBI

It is becoming painfully clear why Obama would never indict Hillary and may provide her a pardon to protect himself. Abedin told FBI agents she “had to tell the White House” every time Hillary Clinton changed her email address to make sure Obama’s device would accept it.

 

What? Barry a liar?

But at least Barry knows who is fit to succeed him... But, maybe, this was also a lie.

 

As far as I'm aware, Obama isn't charged or even accused of anything by the FBI. The FBI statement prior to the elections was that there are no changes with regard to the conclusions relating to HRC server investigation. The difference between the headline you quoted (from Martin Armstrong's blog) and that appearing in the source he quotes (Fox News) is rather obvious. What he assumes as a fact, is more cautiously presented by Fox as an unconfirmed possibility.

[Andaman Al]

 

No conflict of interest here then.

 

Quote

Donald Trump Owns a Stake in the Dakota Access Pipeline

 

Quote

"The Associated Press reports being told by Kelcy Warren, CEO of Dallas-based Energy Transfer, who donated to Trump’s campaign and to a committee “supporting Trump’s candidacy that, “he expects Trump to make it easier for his company and others to complete infrastructure projects.”

 

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/25/donald-trump-owns-stake-dakota-access-pipeline.html

[Silurian]

7 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Critics on Tuesday morning were quick to pan President-elect Trump's proposal to make burning the American flag illegal, but soon after a bill began circulating on social media that Hillary Clinton introduced in 2006 to do exactly the same thing.

 

I do remember that and I was against it then too. It's interesting as the 2006 bill was co-sponsored by a Republican Senator from Utah. So one thing it does show that Dems and Repubs can actually work together...amazing.

 

One side note, the bill introduced in 2006 didn't call for the revoking of citizenship like Don the Prez proposed. The sentencing was a bit lighter (For “any person” who burns a flag or causes one to be burned in order to incite violence, the bill called for a maximum fine of $100,000 or one year imprisonment, or both. If the desecrated flag belonged to the U.S. government, the maximum penalties would rise to $250,000 and two years behind bars.)

[Andreas2]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

As far as I'm aware, Obama isn't charged or even accused of anything by the FBI. The FBI statement prior to the elections was that there are no changes with regard to the conclusions relating to HRC server investigation. The difference between the headline you quoted (from Martin Armstrong's blog) and that appearing in the source he quotes (Fox News) is rather obvious. What he assumes as a fact, is more cautiously presented by Fox as an unconfirmed possibility.

 

Thank you for your fair response.

 

What I see as proof, that Obama must have approved, and thus have known, that HRC was fiddling around with her email, is this:

Abedin told FBI agents she "had to tell the White House" every time Hillary Clinton changed her email address to make sure his device would accept it.

Obama's presidential cell phone only accepts calls and messages from "whitelisted" sources, Herridge reported last week.

 

I think we can agree that these are facts.

I can't imagine, that there was a rogue admin ("lone wolf") responsible for the President's "White List", who modified the list without the approval of somebody in charge for clearances. I'm sure there are tough protocols to follow.

Unfortunately the FBI doesn't say, who gave the approvals for these updates of the President's "White List". This person in the White House must have known about HRC's private servers and its security breaches - And kept quiet... And this person seems to be untouchable.

 

I mean, couldn't that count as treason (I'm not a lawyer)? Could this mean that there is still a traitor employed, responsible for the President's "White List" and we haven't heard anything about him/her?

It seems that nobody in the FBI feels the urge to find out (and inform the public), who this person is, who set state secrets into the wilderness of the internet - Besides team HRC.

[Andaman Al]

6 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

 

Thank you for your fair response.

 

What I see as proof, that Obama must have approved, and thus have known, that HRC was fiddling around with her email, is this:

Abedin told FBI agents she "had to tell the White House" every time Hillary Clinton changed her email address to make sure his device would accept it.

Obama's presidential cell phone only accepts calls and messages from "whitelisted" sources, Herridge reported last week.

 

I think we can agree that these are facts.

I can't imagine, that there was a rogue admin ("lone wolf") responsible for the President's "White List", who modified the list without the approval of somebody in charge for clearances. I'm sure there are tough protocols to follow.

Unfortunately the FBI doesn't say, who gave the approvals for these updates of the President's "White List". This person in the White House must have known about HRC's private servers and its security breaches - And kept quiet... And this person seems to be untouchable.

 

I mean, couldn't that count as treason (I'm not a lawyer)? Could this mean that there is still a traitor employed, responsible for the President's "White List" and we haven't heard anything about him/her?

It seems that nobody in the FBI feels the urge to find out (and inform the public), who this person is, who set state secrets into the wilderness of the internet - Besides team HRC.

 

I think your imagination is running riot and without any sound reason to do so. Informing the 'White House' does not mean informing Obama. There are hundreds of administrative staff whose job it is to keep communications systems and records up to date. How can you imagine for one second that Obama would have been informed or consulted concerning changes to email protocols, it is just impossible to consider. The guy was/is running global policy and strategy not micro managing some lateral administrative function. If the passage you quote above is what you see as your 'proof' then it would not stand up for 10 seconds in a court of law. Move on. Neither Clinton, nor her staff were traitors, if you want real White House American traitors then look no further than Nixon and Reagan, and once Trumps true relationship with Russia comes out you will be able to add him.

[Andreas2]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I think your imagination is running riot and without any sound reason to do so. Informing the 'White House' does not mean informing Obama. There are hundreds of administrative staff whose job it is to keep communications systems and records up to date. How can you imagine for one second that Obama would have been informed or consulted concerning changes to email protocols, it is just impossible to consider. The guy was/is running global policy and strategy not micro managing some lateral administrative function. If the passage you quote above is what you see as your 'proof' then it would not stand up for 10 seconds in a court of law. Move on. Neither Clinton, nor her staff were traitors, if you want real White House American traitors then look no further than Nixon and Reagan, and once Trumps true relationship with Russia comes out you will be able to add him.

 

According to Wikipedia:

In May 2016, the Department's Office of the Inspector General Steve Linick released an 83-page report about the State Department's email practices. The Inspector General was unable to find evidence that Clinton had ever sought approval from the State Department staff for her use of a private email server, determining that if Clinton had sought approval, Department staff would have declined her setup because of the "security risks in doing so".

 

To me, it seems, that there is a body ("staff") in every department, which is responsible for security clearances, which follows strict procedures.

You are correct, I don't know, which "staff" of which department is responsible for the approvals of the President's "White List". But, I guess, there is also a "staff" which has to nod for any updates of the President's "White List". As it seems, it was not the "State Department staff". So, which "staff" would you suggest? Agriculture? Education?

Could you at least agree, that there also must exist a "staff", responsible for security clearances, including the President's "White List"? I called it "White House", very well knowing that they don't need to be physically located in the White House.

 

You say: The guy [Obama] was/is running global policy and strategy not micro managing some lateral administrative function.

I ask you: Where is your sound reasoning, that the approval of security clearances is an administrative function?

 

You say: If the passage you quote above is what you see as your 'proof' then it would not stand up for 10 seconds in a court of law.

I ask you: Why? Did Huma lie? Did Herridge lie? Or do you question the report in itself? Again, why? What's your argument for not agreeing to these facts? Any background information for your claim? Please share your sound reasoning.

 

Conclusion: Obama/the White House: Not fit to be President!

Let me finish with a recent quote of a great mind: I think your imagination is running riot and without any sound reason to do so.

 

PS: Andaman Al, stay strong!

Edited November 30, 2016 by Andreas2

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

 

According to Wikipedia:

In May 2016, the Department's Office of the Inspector General Steve Linick released an 83-page report about the State Department's email practices. The Inspector General was unable to find evidence that Clinton had ever sought approval from the State Department staff for her use of a private email server, determining that if Clinton had sought approval, Department staff would have declined her setup because of the "security risks in doing so".

 

To me, it seems, that there is a body ("staff") in every department, which is responsible for security clearances, which follows strict procedures.

You are correct, I don't know, which "staff" of which department is responsible for the approvals of the President's "White List". But, I guess, there is also a "staff" which has to nod for any updates of the President's "White List". As it seems, it was not the "State Department staff". So, which "staff" would you suggest? Agriculture? Education?

Could you at least agree, that there also must exist a "staff", responsible for security clearances, including the President's "White List"? I called it "White House", very well knowing that they don't need to be physically located in the White House.

 

You say: The guy [Obama] was/is running global policy and strategy not micro managing some lateral administrative function.

I ask you: Where is your sound reasoning, that the approval of security clearances is an administrative function?

 

You say: If the passage you quote above is what you see as your 'proof' then it would not stand up for 10 seconds in a court of law.

I ask you: Why? Did Huma lie? Did Herridge lie? Or do you question the report in itself? Again, why? What's your argument for not agreeing to these facts? Any background information for your claim? Please share your sound reasoning.

 

Conclusion: Obama/the White House: Not fit to be President!

Let me finish with a recent quote of a great mind: I think your imagination is running riot and without any sound reason to do so.

 

PS: Andaman Al, stay strong!

"I ask you....", "it seems....", "I don't know....", etc.  Concluding with "Obama/the White House:Not fit to be President!"

 

I agree the White House is not fit to be President--it is just a building.  Beyond that I find your speculative logic unconvincing.

 

I'll go with the conclusion of the FBI investigation:

 

" In July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced in a statement he read to press and television reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, that the FBI had completed its investigation and was referring it to the State Department with the recommendation "that no charges are appropriate in this case."^{[135][136][137]} He added, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."^{[135][136]"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy} 

 

The Federal government in general, not just the State Department, has been inexcusably lax on internet security.  HRC's cluelessness on the subject definitely does not speak well of her.  However Trump's cluelessness is at an entirely different, and frightening, level.  At least HRC is capable of admitting error and learning from the experience.

Edited November 30, 2016 by heybruce

[Ahab]

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

 

Let me clarify Director Comey's statement:

1. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" means that there is enough evidence to go to trial. The jury will decide, based on the law and the judges instructions regarding the law if she is guilty or not guilty of these potential violations of the statutes.

 

2. "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." means that no reasonable prosecutor (in the Obama administration) would bring such a case six months before an election. I would bet dollars for donuts that if Trump had been the President and Senator Sessions was the Attorney General at the time that Director Comey presented his evidence that it might just have been possible to find a "reasonable prosecutor" that would bring such a case.

 

In any case it is a moot point, decided by the American people in the only poll that matters, the election of President Trump.

[heybruce]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

 

Let me clarify Director Comey's statement:

1. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" means that there is enough evidence to go to trial. The jury will decide, based on the law and the judges instructions regarding the law if she is guilty or not guilty of these potential violations of the statutes.

 

2. "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." means that no reasonable prosecutor (in the Obama administration) would bring such a case six months before an election. I would bet dollars for donuts that if Trump had been the President and Senator Sessions was the Attorney General at the time that Director Comey presented his evidence that it might just have been possible to find a "reasonable prosecutor" that would bring such a case.

 

In any case it is a moot point, decided by the American people in the only poll that matters, the election of President Trump.

You're not clarifying, you're giving your interpretation of the statements of a professional who served under both Bush and Obama and is far better qualified to make these judgements than you.

 

As far as prosecuting "potential violations", when classified information has been published by the media, as the classified on Clinton's server was before it was identified as classified, it is beyond pointless to prosecute.  That is why the millions of people who bought a copy of "The Pentagon Papers" in the 1970's were not prosecuted.

 

However you are probably correct in assuming that under Trump the judiciary will be politicized to prosecute opponents and go easy on friends and family who are guilty of fraud, discrimination, conflict of interests, etc.

 

As to the "election" of Trump, in spite of HRC winning the popular vote by a significant margin, it is debatable what was decided.  Although the circumstances provide much needed evidence to Trump's claim that the election was rigged.

Edited November 30, 2016 by heybruce

[Ahab]

I may be wrong but I don't think the TS/SCI information that was found on the server has been released publicly.

[iReason]

The Clown Train continues... 

 

Sarah Palin Under Consideration for VA Secretary

 

"Sarah Palin is under consideration for secretary of veterans affairs, a close Palin aide and a top Donald Trump transition official tell ABC News."

 

"The Palin aide tells ABC News that in “recent days,” Palin told Trump transition officials:

"I feel as though the megaphone I have been provided can be used in a productive and positive way to help those desperately in need.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-consideration-va-secretary/story?id=43878336

 

The corrupt incoherent buffoon who ran away amid ethics investigations and resigned mid-term (her first) as a Governor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin

Edited December 1, 2016 by iReason

[metisdead]

A post containing unattributed content and in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as a reply.  If you cannot link to the content posted, please don't post. 

[iReason]

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. I'm sure the Russians were enjoying their direct access to the administration via her not secured server.

 

But, but, but Hillary...

 

Weak, childish, unsubstantiated deflection.

Boring. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by iReason

[Silurian]

How terrible is the current economy...um, not so bad really.

 

Opinion: Here’s the verdict on that ‘terrible’ Obama economy

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-verdict-on-that-terrible-obama-economy-2016-11-30

 

 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

 

Thank you for your fair response.

 

What I see as proof, that Obama must have approved, and thus have known, that HRC was fiddling around with her email, is this:

Abedin told FBI agents she "had to tell the White House" every time Hillary Clinton changed her email address to make sure his device would accept it.

Obama's presidential cell phone only accepts calls and messages from "whitelisted" sources, Herridge reported last week.

 

I think we can agree that these are facts.

I can't imagine, that there was a rogue admin ("lone wolf") responsible for the President's "White List", who modified the list without the approval of somebody in charge for clearances. I'm sure there are tough protocols to follow.

Unfortunately the FBI doesn't say, who gave the approvals for these updates of the President's "White List". This person in the White House must have known about HRC's private servers and its security breaches - And kept quiet... And this person seems to be untouchable.

 

I mean, couldn't that count as treason (I'm not a lawyer)? Could this mean that there is still a traitor employed, responsible for the President's "White List" and we haven't heard anything about him/her?

It seems that nobody in the FBI feels the urge to find out (and inform the public), who this person is, who set state secrets into the wilderness of the internet - Besides team HRC.

 

Apparently, we cannot even agree about what facts are. Abedin's testimony is necessarily an accurate account, for starters. But even if it is, and as posted by others, the notion that she updated Obama directly is far-fetched. Unless mistaken, there was even a couple of times where Obama admitted to not being all that tech savvy when it came to mobiles and smartphones, seeing as he doesn't use them as much, for security reasons. In all likelihood, updating emails is a staffer's job. Probably not a very highly ranked one, at that.

 

That security protocols were not adhered to does not necessarily make for a conspiracy or collusion, but may simply indicate a prevailing culture of carelessness with regard to these matters. Not condoning it, just not attaching imaginary motivations. I get it some won't be satisfied without someone burning at the stake, but most times these things are not all that easily pinned on individual actions. In my experience, such procedures and protocols are usually followed more strictly in lower and mid levels, the higher up one goes, the less bound by regulations people seem to feel.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

"I ask you....", "it seems....", "I don't know....", etc.  Concluding with "Obama/the White House:Not fit to be President!"

 

I agree the White House is not fit to be President--it is just a building.  Beyond that I find your speculative logic unconvincing.

 

I'll go with the conclusion of the FBI investigation:

 

" In July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced in a statement he read to press and television reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, that the FBI had completed its investigation and was referring it to the State Department with the recommendation "that no charges are appropriate in this case."^{[135][136][137]} He added, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."^{[135][136]"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy} 

 

The Federal government in general, not just the State Department, has been inexcusably lax on internet security.  HRC's cluelessness on the subject definitely does not speak well of her.  However Trump's cluelessness is at an entirely different, and frightening, level.  At least HRC is capable of admitting error and learning from the experience.

Why don't we all wait till the new AG takes over next year and see if any prosecutions are brought against any in the W H staff? Speculation at this point in time is pointless.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Silurian said:

How terrible is the current economy...um, not so bad really.

 

Opinion: Here’s the verdict on that ‘terrible’ Obama economy

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-verdict-on-that-terrible-obama-economy-2016-11-30

 

 

Hmmmm. I guess either Obama couldn't sell it or the people that voted for Trump didn't believe it.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

You're not clarifying, you're giving your interpretation of the statements of a professional who served under both Bush and Obama and is far better qualified to make these judgements than you.

 

As far as prosecuting "potential violations", when classified information has been published by the media, as the classified on Clinton's server was before it was identified as classified, it is beyond pointless to prosecute.  That is why the millions of people who bought a copy of "The Pentagon Papers" in the 1970's were not prosecuted.

 

However you are probably correct in assuming that under Trump the judiciary will be politicized to prosecute opponents and go easy on friends and family who are guilty of fraud, discrimination, conflict of interests, etc.

 

As to the "election" of Trump, in spite of HRC winning the popular vote by a significant margin, it is debatable what was decided.  Although the circumstances provide much needed evidence to Trump's claim that the election was rigged.

However you are probably correct in assuming that under Trump the judiciary will be politicized to prosecute opponents and go easy on friends and family who are guilty of fraud, discrimination, conflict of interests, etc.

Is it your contention that the anti Trump media will be banned as well? If not, how would he expect to get away with that?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎28‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 2:18 PM, heybruce said:

The Green party has asked for a recount in a few close state where there is reason to believe that electronic voting machines were hacked.  I don't have a problem with that.

If the Greens weren't lying about it, they would also be asking for a recount in a few close states that Clinton won where there is reason to believe that electronic voting machines were hacked. However, apparently they believe the hacking only occurred in states where Trump won, despite admitting they have zero actual proof.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/27/wisconsin-elections-officials-see-no-proof-of-hack/

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, iReason said:

 

But, but, but Hillary...

 

Weak, childish, unsubstantiated deflection.

Boring. 

Your point is?

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

However you are probably correct in assuming that under Trump the judiciary will be politicized to prosecute opponents and go easy on friends and family who are guilty of fraud, discrimination, conflict of interests, etc.

Is it your contention that the anti Trump media will be banned as well? If not, how would he expect to get away with that?

Trump has indicated that he would like to limit what the press can report, however since he was elected president, not king, there is little he can do on that subject.

 

However the Trumpies have shown that they don't pay attention to legitimate news sources that rely on a reputation for accurate reporting, they prefer biased or fake news that tells them things they want to believe.  Even if Trump attempts unconstitutional actions--politicizing the judiciary, censoring the press--they will cheer him on.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the Greens weren't lying about it, they would also be asking for a recount in a few close states that Clinton won where there is reason to believe that electronic voting machines were hacked. However, apparently they believe the hacking only occurred in states where Trump won, despite admitting they have zero actual proof.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/27/wisconsin-elections-officials-see-no-proof-of-hack/

They had to crowd-source the funding for these recounts.  If the recount shows the election results are in question, then other states can conduct a recount.

[SaintLouisBlues]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

They had to crowd-source the funding for these recounts.  If the recount shows the election results are in question, then other states can conduct a recount.

Precisely. They have limited resources and have chosen to deploy those resources in the States where they believe they have the greatest chance of success