Ten oz

I don't believe it is a matter of changing ones mind. It is a tactic. A painfully effective tactic Republicans employ. They deny climate change, deny that the accessibility of guns matters, deny evolution, deny that the economy recovered under Obama, deny crime is down, deny illegal immigration has been at net zero, they deny anything which is convenient for them to deny. They successfully cloud the water with doubt knowing that most people respect compromise and they can bully honest people into concesions. So we concede that some people don't understand or believe climate change, concede that militia means every individual everywhere, concede evolution vs creation is a choice, concede, concede, concede. Republicans know Climate Change is real. They also know denial of it gives them flexibility and influence. By denying Climate Change they how successfully created a paradigm in which attempting to convince them has become a bigger focus than any actual policy. Their stuborness now leads most climate discussion. Denial works! We all just watched Donald Trump dismiss and deny reality all the way into winning the presidency of the United States. Saying it hard to change ones mind provides Republicans with respect they do not deserve. Respect that their views are heart felt; they are not. They are liars who deny simply to manipulate debate and shift focus.

If Trump ignored information provided by our intelligence community during the Election but it benefited him to is that equal to willfully accepting help from Russia to win the election? If so does that compromise him to an extent that should be disqualifying for office?

Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio call sanctions against Russia in response to the cyber attacks during the election "long overdue". I question the Senates sincerity on this issue. When concerned about Benghazi and the protection of classified materials they held hearings and put high ranking gov't officials like former Sec or State Hillary Clinton and the FBI Director James Comey under oath and questioned them. Donald Trump continues to say he doesn't believe Russia was involved, had a pro-Russian political party beneficiary as part of his campaign (see link below), and clearly was the candidate Russian hackers sought to help yet the investigations aren't looking into Trump. Trump's campaign servers, the RNC's servers, finiancial records, texes, and etc aren't under review. Trump isn't being asked to testify. If we believe Russia did this than shouldn't we make sure Trump was not in anyway in on it?? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has release new figures for the number of arrest related deaths around the country and the number is higher than earlier estimate. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardprs1516pf.pdf In the past we have debated reason why this happens, compared it stats from other countries, argued about which protest methods are acceptable, and etc. For the sake of this thread I am assuming we all agree the number should be less and that this is a problem which must be addressed structurally (policy, training, organiztion, equipment, etc). Given our new political climate what can be done structurally and where would it begin?

Trump's candidacy has already proved that objections made by Republicans over the last 8yrs were only ever meant to obstruct and were never in good faith or the beat interest of the country. And it worked! No penalty for purposefully undermining the governments ability to function for partisan gain.

"Donald Trump's campaign struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage, his son-in-law Jared Kushner told business executives Friday in Manhattan. Kushner said the agreement with Sinclair, which owns television stations across the country in many swing states and often packages news for their affiliates to run, gave them more access to Trump and the campaign, according to six people who heard his remarks." "Kushner, dressed in a suit and sneakers, told the business executives that the campaign was upset with CNN because they considered its on-air panels stacked against Trump. He added that he personally talked with Jeff Zucker about changing the composition of the panels but Zucker refused. He repeatedly said in the panel that CNN wasn't "moving the needle" and wasn't important as it once was, according to three of the people present. The campaign then decided not to work as closely with CNN, and Trump ramped up his bashing of the cable network." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 If outlets are directly working with political candidates should there have to be disclaimers? if a candidate or a political action committee runs an ad they have to make it known they paid for the ad yet a media conglomerate can work with a compaign and no transparency is required. Not good!

After Shelby County vs Holder Conservatives changed voting laws in 14 states that were meant to make it more difficult for minorities who typically vote democrat to vote vote. A look at key states show the effectiveness of this. In MI voter turnout in Detriot and Flint was down despite the rest of the state being up. Similar result in PA with Philadelphia down while other areas were up. And in NC the GOP is taking not so subtle steps to ensure gains they have made will continue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/republican-voting-rights-supreme-court-id http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/voter-suppression-in-north-carolina.html http://whttp://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/see_how_every_michigan_county.htmlww.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/republican-voting-rights-supreme-court-id So I don't see how the Democrats win in 4yrs? I personally feel that complains about Hillary Clintons campaign strategy or charisma miss the mark. She got nearly 3 million more votes and in key states like WI was leading in the polls by an average of 7 points. Allsigns pointed to a win, she lost, and now people are rushing to put it on her character, which states she visited, how the campaign spent more and etc. I think it is deeper than that. The playing field isn't level. Then there is the media. The media loves Trump! The media has been in a death spiral for years and Trump has been a shot in the arm for them. Everything he say is click bait. Everything he does goes viral. Running live feeds of empty poduims ahead of a Trump speech gets ratings. Then you have groups like the Sinclair Corp. who just straight up cut a deal with Trump. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 I see no push back by the Democratic Party. They aren't making noise about voter supression and have no answer for the media. We could very easily end up with 8yrs of Trump. As a candidate Trump toyed with not attending debates, used illegally obtained emails in campiagn adds, cut deals with media outlets for preferential treatment, and threaten to imprison his rival when he won. That was powerless candidate Trump. As a POTUS it will be worse. In 2020 he will dictate debate schedules (assuming he allows them), will use our intelligence aencies against his opponents, bully media outlets, and will have the ability to pressure law enforcement agencies to investigate his oppoenents. You think the FBI announcing more investigations a week before the election was bad. Just wait till 2020.

Which rules has Hillary Clinton violated and not been taken to task for? Every accusation against Hillary Clinton has been exhaustedly chased to the ground including the fake conspiracy ones. She has testified before Congress, given depositions under oath, had her private emails subpoenead, publicly released all her financial records, and has even been illegally hacked and private material released. Such sarcastic comments that reflect fallacious narratives to deflect from the facts of what's being discussed is ugly and terribly disrespectful. At the heart of your post you are basically saying that while rules were broken you don't care because in this case your team got away with it. Sort of like when Trump said not paying taxes makes him smart. It isn't what is right or wrong. It is about what one can getaway with vs not getaway with. If that is how you feel than own up to it and accept it being pointed out how poorly that reflects on your moral compass, character, and integrity. Better than denying it and proving yourself ignorant, dishonest, and crass.

Meanwhile attempts to get paper ballot recounts done to verify the computer results were rejected in court. Rejected in MI: http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/trump-schuette-michigan-recount-election/95048550/ Rejected in PA: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-pennsylvania-election-recount-20161212-story.html Rejected in WI: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/29/steins-recount-headed-court-tuesday/94598740/

People on welfare should not drive expensive new cars, people should not sell food stamp for cash to buy drugs, no one should promote violence against police, after Katrina while waiting days for help people shouldn't have looted ad nauseam. Self proclaimed conservatives often use actions of a few as justification to dismiss the many. Why bother arguing the merrits of something when attacking the actions of a few is some much easier.

Trump has nominated Rex Tillerson to be Sec of State. Rex Tillerson works for Exxonn and help sign a deasl with Russia estimated to be worth half a trilion dollars. However sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and EU following Crimea has blocked the deal from moving foward. According to filings earlier this year Rex Tillerson own 218 million in Exxonn stock. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html Is this a conflict of interest? Does the public have the right to know worth or not Donald Trump owns Exxonn stock?

Trump supporters and conservatives broadly are breathtaking in their double standards. For years we have heard about how unfit Hillary Clinton was to be POTUS because she used a server that potentially could have made (no information that it ever did) classified information vulnerable. Meanwhile Trump has considered Gen. Petraeus for cabinet positions and he was found guilt and convicted of leaking classified information. Gen Mattis who is nominated for Sec of Defense is linked via email to Petraeus case and Genn Flynn who Trump nominated for National Security Directory was found to have leaked information as well. Meanwhile Trump himself publicly dismisses and ridicules the intel community at large. http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/sources-mattis-received-anonymous-email-in-petraeus-case http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/14/us/politics/ap-us-trump-flynn-intelligence.html?_r=0 Hillary Clinton is currently up in the popular vote by 2.8 million people (amount equal to or greater than the population of about 20 inividual states) and conservatives have basically been saying "so what, electoral college decides. Founders in their wisdom made it that way". Now that the Electoral College is considering to vote against Trump the same Conservatives are claiming coup. Yet the same founders who created the electoral college system made it so that it required actual electors to make votes rather than just automatically assigning a states popular vote to a candidate. "Over 22 occasions, a total of 179 electors have not cast their votes for President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector Electors have voted against the popular vote of their state many times in the past. More than enough times for the Constitutionality of doing so to have been challanged. The Supreme Court has never made an ruling against it and it has happened throughout our history.

Yes, the situation is already very bad. Trump didn't materialize in a vacuum. From the Bush admin corcing us into war, torture, imprisoning people without trail (Gitmo is still open) to historic levels of opposition against Obama during his 2 terms we have seen elements within our gov't working against itself and to minimize the rule of law for decades.

I don't have cable TV. Netflix is my sources for television when I am interested in watching something. Online I do not view (click on) headlines from FoxNews, CNN, NBC, and etc. However millions upon millions do. The new narrative seems to be that we have entered a fact free era. I happen to think that is incorrect. I believe most people who accept the existence of fake news or rebuttals to facts usings fake information simply don't care what the facts are. We aren't in a fact free era much as we are in a who gives a sh*! era. There are people on this very site like tar, for example, who know the facts but willfully ignore them because he just wants what they want. Like an alcoholic who knows drinking too much is bad but isn't interested is stopping. It is a very crazy position we find ourselves in. The majority of the country doesn't believe he is fit for office. That isn't just those who voted for someone else but even amongst those who voted for Trump there is consternation. We are all just moving forward and accepting a Presidnet few actually want because it is what we all agree our system dictates. Yet, this is exacctly what our system was designed to avoid.The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We simply need to will to stop it. The Electors can stop it, Congress can stop it, that just need tobe understood. Sadly, it isn't. Murderers have walked free and innocent people have gone to prison. Republicans in Congress held hearings on Banghazi and Hillary Clinton's email server during a presidential campaign to purposely hurt the character of their political rival yet wouldn't hold a vote on the President's Supreme Court. Not onlydoes the Constitution give the President the authority to fill Court positions but the President can do so without a vote in Congress at all. If Congress fails to vote the President can appoint a justice while Congress is in recess. So this year Congress forewent recesskeeping some staff on the Hill to block the President from making a recess appointment. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/20/republican-senators-skipping-recess-to-block-obama/ I use that as an example of how malleable the law is. Everyone understands that Obama as President has Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court Justices and yet he was successfully blocked. Procedure aside it still take fortitude to act. The Constitution clearly outlaws torture and yet George Bush tortured and nothing happened. Donald Trump on the Campaign trail said he'll bring torture back. Saying that Trump has no say in the matter ignores history a bit in my opinion. Reagan sold weapons to Iran after Congress passed a law specifically outlawing the sale of weapons to Iran. Nothing happened to Reagan because he simply said he couldn't remember the deal. Law is not monolithic when ones has means.

As Phi for All points out, Trump operates with impunity. Trump has active conflicts of interests yet merely saying he'll explain later sufficies, he never released his taxes but that is accepted, he isn't officially elected POTUS yet but continues to speak with world leaders without working with the State Dept, he is taking shots at govt contractors like Lockheed Martin & Boeing, and etc, etc, etc. Iam encouraged that the Senate is investigating but at the same time I see no reason to assume they will have the ability to contain Trump once he has real power. Trump operates above the law and he doesn't even have power yet. Once in office Trump can use executive privilege to block the Congress from access to anyone in his staff while at the same time using the DOJ to launch investigations into the legitimacy of Congress to challange him. I don't believe Congress has the fortitude to stannd against Trump. It is not a united enough body and the media has made it explicitly clear they will give Trump what he wants. What could Obama do? Pending the report he receives from Intel community he could request the Attorney General open and investigation into any connections between Trump and Russia to include Trumps finances/businesses. This would move matters into the judicial branch which is less easily manipulated and undermined than the legislative branch. Of course such a move could potentially hurt Obama's legacy. The media would frame it as an unprecedented act of partisanship.

Nothing, it was more of a question of should than would and or can. Constitutionally the Courts and Congress have the ability to act but Obama does not.

Just to clarify, I do not believe Obama will do anything. However by ordering the report he has forced the question. What happens if the CIA comes back and tells him that yes Russia influenced the election, Trump was in on it, and provide proorf that includes transations between Trump staff and the Kremlin or excessive debt holdings in Russia? That isn't the only possible outcome or even a likely outcome but by asking for a report before he leaves office it is a possible outcome. In good faith and responsibility to his office and the American people could he stand back and do nothing if a Trump Russian conspiracy were believed? Again, it isn't likely and I understand that is silly to a degree. Probably just a bunch of mental masterbation on my part but asking for the report does have the potential of putting Obama in a precarious positions. Obviously the GOP will do anything to preserve this win. They aren't afraid of Clinton on grounds of national interests but rather partisan interest. The GOP want tax cuts, they want to get the majority back in the courts, and would happily have Pence delivering those. They will just let Trump take office and then impeach him. That does appear to be the plan. McConnell, as a member of the Senate Intel committee, was briefed about Russia in Sept yet waited till this weekend to become concerned. So their intentions are not so secret. That said the GOP has failed to stop Trump before. Failed to mobilze against him before. It is a dangerous gamble for them to assume that once Trump becomes the most powerful man in the world they will be able to just hold a vote and he'll go away. Once in power Trump will work agressively to scuttle any and all investigations against him while using all agencies at his disposal to punitively harrash and attack his opposition. We are, after all, talking about a guy who threatened to have his opponent put in prison if he won during a televised debate, and then still won. People weren't horrified by the implication. Rather, the media is treating a possible Clinton imprisonment as a Trump campaign promise that he has has "softened" on. Media never bothers to point out that the President doesn't have such authority or that Clinton was already exonerated by the proper authorities. What stops Trump from threatening to imprison Mitch McConnell or any other official who opposes him? It certianly wouldn't be an out of character move on Trump's part. I agree with what you have said but fear (perhaps irrationally) all beats may be off once Trump assumes office. He has already shown that he can bully his rivals, threaten people, and break protocol at will without any repercussions. He has just flatly refused to show his taxes, been caught lying about matters ranging from innocous to vital, is currently saying he doesn't need intel briefs because he is a smart guy, and the on and on and on. He doesn't even have power yet and he can't be constrained. Hard for me to see Congress impeaching Trump without dystopian level choas. However I concede I could just be being hysterical.

@ Phi for All, can I get your thoughts on something: Barrack Obama is still POTUS. He is still responsible for the protection of this country. In lieu of Donald Trump's behavior do you feel we are encroaching upon a constituational crisis point where Obama may actually be obligated to move to block Trump from assuming the Presidency? My thought feels fringe and conspiratorial as I type and yet I cannot help but to wonder. Nixon wasn't impeached because he orchestrated the break in at the Watergate Hotel but rather for helping conceal it after the fact. Trump in his denial about the hacks and dismissive treatment of intelligence agencies in a de facto way concealing the crime. In a manner which dangerously places Trumps own personal interests against the national interest. Exacerbating the point is Trump lack of any transparency. Just today he has decide to put off his press conference where he was to explain how he was going to disentangle himself from any potential conflicts of interests. He now plans to explain sometime in Jan. but no date was provided. What would action from Obama look like? Once the electors make Trump official on the 19th would/will Obama even still have the constitutional authority to act? This isn't at the level of Abraham Lincoln being cursed to commit to civil war in order to preserve the nation but it might be the closet we have or will see in our life times. It is mind boggling that despite falling unemployment, falsing crime, the most highly educated population we have had, and etc we are pushing ourselves to this moment for seemingly no reason. As if our comfort created a type of apathy which requires choas and disorder to shake us away from. Am I too concerned. Would action from Obama simply unjustly stir civil unrest? Have I gone down the rabbit hole viewing Trump with an exaggerated partisan perspective? I ask you because from what I have read of your posts we seem to at least believe the same set of basic facts. The questions are of course open to Swansont, iNow, and others who do not openly reject facts.

Sl the fact that Trump blows off intel briefs because he feels they're too repetitive, refuses to accept what he is briefed, lies about what he has been briefed (claimed he was shown a video of a deal in Iran), continues to speculate that China may have been involved, and criticizes the intel community broadly is all acceptable to you pending the results of a bipartisan investigation? His behavior isn't of no concern and there is no standard President Elect Trump should be held to. The burden here is on the Intel community. Unless they provide evidence to your liking that passes your sniff test Trump is free to lie, accuse China, insult, and basically behavior in any manner he sees fit?

For Immediate Release DHS Press Office Contact: 202-282-8010 The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national No it is not just the CIA. This isn't even a partisan issue. Mitch McConnell is the Republican's Senate Majority leader and John McCain was the Republcan Patry's nominee.

President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday that “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real and that he is “studying” whether the United States should withdraw from the global warming agreement struck in Paris a year ago. “I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows,” Trump said. “Look, I’m somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It’s not something that’s so hard and fast. I do know this: Other countries are eating our lunch.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/trump-says-nobody-really-knows-if-climate-change-is-real/?utm_term=.3140f567f463 Trump is someone who "gets it"! What exactly does he think he gets if in fact "nobody knows"? And if no body knows who or what is he "studying" and being "open minded" about. I would call the statement a contradiction but the reality is that the comment is actually just a self asserting denial of Climate Change. Trump is basically saying the he is a smart open minded guy who has reviewed the climate issue in a nonpartisan manner and found that climate scientists don't real know what is happening. What Trump actually says vs what he implies are almost always different things.

Techinically he isn't elected yet. He isn't elected until the electors meet and make it official. That is part of the problem currently. If the Senate (controlled by the GOP) opens a full blown investigation as is being requested they risk electors bailing on Trump. So it wouldn't be a matter of impeachment but rather a matter of Trump not being elected which would mean the GOP could lose the White House. If they can continue to dismiss the issue until Trump's victory is secured by the electors than they are assured to keep the White House regardless of what a potential investigation reveals.

Today in an interview with Chris Wallace Trump said the following regarding the Hacks: “It's just another excuse. I don't believe it,” Trump said. “… Every week it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.” “Nobody really knows, and hacking is very interesting. Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act you're not going to catch them,” he said. “They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place.” “Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country.” Trump said the efforts could be political, adding Democrats are “very embarrassed.” Trump isn't merely dismissing the intel community here but promoting a self-aggrandizing narative which is rooted in fantasy. There are many prominent Republicans involved in the push for an investigation. Republicans like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Richard Burr, and Bob Corker are playing a bigger role in calling for hearings than any Democrats are. The Republican party is in the majority and as such head the Armed Services Committee, Select Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee. Any investigation would be chaired by Republicans and not Democrats. Trump is wrong in claiming this is some type of partisan Democrat move. Also, Trumps victory was not a "massive landslide". It was one of the closest electoral wins in history and the biggest popular vote loss for a winning candidate in history. That Trump refuses that reality is very distasteful. That he would tie his exaggerated victory into such a sensitive matter so to trivialize and impune the very agencies he will soon be in charge of is terrible!

In a statement, Trump suggested that the CIA had discredited itself over faulty intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons stockpile more than a dozen years ago. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” he said. The belittling response alarmed people in the intelligence community, which already had questioned Trump’s temperament and lack of national security experience. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cia-on-collision-course-over-russias-role-in-us-election/2016/12/10/ad01556c-bf01-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.a0b4606075bc The Intelligence community believes Russia worked to help Trump win. That doesn't mean Trump was in on it. However, in attacking the intelligence community is Trump willfully or perhaps just ignorantly trying to help conceal it? Is there a point when the facts of this in combination with his behavior become seriousness that our intel community have an obligation to make moves against Trump to protect the nation? Or is Trump right and our intel community simply isn't to be trusted? Either way it seems we have a brewing constitutional crisis. How badly do the GOP want this win. How badly do anger white conservatives want this win. Trump is not in office yet and has already heightened tensions with China, already bullied U.S. defense contractors (Boeing & United Technologies), has ignored Intel briefings, and is now openly antagonizing the CIA for doing their job. Trump is revealing himself to be the exact threat so many of us feared he would be. As a nation do we have the ability to correct this mistake. Does our constitution (inner and legal) allow for us to step back from the edge? We can not allow the cynicism, racism, and partisanship that got Trump elected allow this man to take office. We have a real crisis on our hands.

No, we all agreed that work is a way to measure energy.