Trump protestors

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

You asked me to pick my path, but you gave the choices.

 

There might be other paths available here. Like backing our new president and helping him make this country work. Regardless of your fears or forecasts.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

the Trump supporters are satisfied with the victory and looking forward to a better economy and increased law and order within our borders and a more respected place on the world stage in terms of trade deals and the stock market is up to all time highs since the election, in contrast to the doom and gloom forecast should he win the election

 

 

 

We shall see. In another thread* it was noted that sticks are at an all-time high. We have 4.9% unemployment, violent crime is at or near a multi-decadal low. We live in an information age. It won't be hard to track what's happening.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

*it was also falsely claimed that the only danger to public safety were the Trump protesters. Hate crimes spiked after the election (with the sound of crickets coming from the president-elect, on this topic). That will be another thing to track.

 

edit: we also have one of the most transparent administrations of all time, relatively free of scandal and corruption. Something else to track.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not sure I think Trump is incompetent to lead. I think he is a salesman, a negotiator and it appears that he manipulates people into thinking he is for them, when he is using them to gain an advantage...but I thought Hilary was untrustworthy as well. There are things, that politicians do, to gain the trust of groups of people that sometimes are done at the expense of other groups. Like the Republicans, Drug Companies, Iranians comment, or the basket of deplorable comment. Trump used fear of crime and drugs and ISIS and political correctness and quid pro quo and Washington elite running your life. Hillary had the hate of the basket of deplorables to be afraid of.

 

Thing is, I am IN the basket of deplorables and have to fight my way out and defend myself against every label, and I am a citizen of the U.S. in addition to being a person that is owed the benefit of the doubt and consideration as equally as anybody that is not a white male.

 

For me, it is this we against them thing, where I am the they that I don't think is .

 

And the protestors and several on this thread are relitigating the campaign points which are very we against them, at the same time, as they are suggesting that Trump either attempts to be less divisive or be disqualified and not allowed to lead.

 

I saw a quick statement that was taken off the screen too soon after I started paying attention to it, to know if it was what it looked like, but it was a statement by a younger Trump that if he ever ran for president he would run as a Republican because the republican electorate was the more stupid and easily won over. This is indication to me that Trump will not automatically back conservative programs and such, nor be the demon that dems think he will be, because he is republican and did not denounce the KKK , etc.

Trump can surround himself with different opinions and people that disagree with each other to unite the republican party and still wind up being a person capable of leading the country.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

the Trump supporters are satisfied with the victory and looking forward to a better economy and increased law and order within our borders and a more respected place on the world stage in terms of trade deals and the stock market is up to all time highs since the election, in contrast to the doom and gloom forecast should he win the election

Which is it, Trump will do the things he campaigned to do or is just a saleman that said those things to get elected? Do you even care which is true?

[tar]

DrP,

 

The red line in the sand that was crossed and we did not respond, is an indication of a lack of respect. Russia now has anti aircraft installations and a carrier off the coast and the Syrian rebels we backed are being slaughtered.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

DrP,

 

The red line in the sand that was crossed and we did not respond, is an indication of a lack of respect. Russia now has anti aircraft installations and a carrier off the coast and the Syrian rebels we backed are being slaughtered.

 

Regards, TAR

And Presdient Trump will do what about this??????

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

You asked me to pick my path, but you gave the choices.

 

There might be other paths available here. Like backing our new president and helping him make this country work. Regardless of your fears or forecasts.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I asked you to pick a path of argument. Honesty or dishonesty. I'd have to put moving the goalposts in the latter category.

 

Regarding backing the president, do you mean like Mitch McConnell 8 years ago? About the number one GOP priority being making Obama a one-term president? Is that the kind of backing you're looking for?

 

There is absolutely nothing about the idea of the US that suggests I have to blindly back an elected leader. I will back ideas that actually improve the country. I will exercise my first amendment rights to free speech, assembly and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, probably while taking advantage of the freedom of the press, when I think the ideas don't do that. And that's already begun with his selection of insiders for key positions, despite his promise to "drain the swamp", and his selection of eminently unqualified people for some roles.

[Delta1212]

SwansonT,

 

You asked me to pick my path, but you gave the choices.

 

There might be other paths available here. Like backing our new president and helping him make this country work. Regardless of your fears or forecasts.

 

Regards, TAR

My problem is not with Trump. It is specifically with many of the things he says he wants to do to the country.

 

On things that I think will be beneficial, he'll have my full support to go do them. I think we definitely need to work on repairing and improving our infrastructure, so I'm glad to hear that is something that is being considered by his administration. At the same time, I'm waiting on the details of what that plan will actually be.

 

I'm also not going to just shrug and say "We need to unite behind our new president" when I hear reports that his advisory team is already discussing the possibility of implementing a Muslim registry.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I do not know which Trump will show up at the Oval office. I am hoping for a shrewd negotiator capable of bringing jobs back to upstate N​Y ​and West Virginia. My general opinion that he is more democrat then republican is not the reason I voted for him nor is it my intention to suggest it is OK he lied to his supporters. I mean to suggest that if one is afraid of Trump because he ran Republican one can relax a little, because he talks about two corinthians and obviously is not a bible reader. More to suggest the protestors relax than to suggest a reason why I voted for him.

 

Actual reason I voted for him was that I liked what he said more than what Hilary said, in terms of where I want to see the country go. I was thinking at the polls that I would like to vote a write

-in for Kasich, but I did not know the procedure, it would take time and hold up the line, and it would not matter anyway since NJs electoral votes were going for Hillary anyway.

 

Regards, TAR

SwansonT,

 

Well then I will go with honesty. Back my president when he does good things and call him out when he does the wrong thing.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Ten Oz,

 

I do not know which Trump will show up at the Oval office. I am hoping for a shrewd negotiator capable of bringing jobs back to upstate N​Y ​and West Virginia. My general opinion that he is more democrat then republican is not the reason I voted for him nor is it my intention to suggest it is OK he lied to his supporters. I mean to suggest that if one is afraid of Trump because he ran Republican one can relax a little, because he talks about two corinthians and obviously is not a bible reader. More to suggest the protestors relax than to suggest a reason why I voted for him.

 

Actual reason I voted for him was that I liked what he said more than what Hilary said, in terms of where I want to see the country go. I was thinking at the polls that I would like to vote a write

-in for Kasich, but I did not know the procedure, it would take time and hold up the line, and it would not matter anyway since NJs electoral votes were going for Hillary anyway.

 

Regards, TAR

 

SwansonT,

 

Well then I will go with honesty. Back my president when he does good things and call him out when he does the wrong thing.

 

Regards, TAR

Calling him out for doing the wrong thing (during the campaign) is what the protesters believe themselves to be doing.

 

I watched his 60 Minutes interview. I thought he did well considering, but when asked about the protesters, he said that they had nothing to worry about under a Trump presidency, but also that many if not most of them were professional protesters and that many of their concerns were fabricated or exaggerated.

 

That seems like a good way to reassure your supporters that people who are against you are just troublemakers without real grievances, but telling protesters that they're being paid to protest you seems like a poor way to bring those protesters into the fold and reassure them that their concerns are being heard. I was not impressed by him as a unifier in the way he answered that particular question.

 

He's got plenty of time to turn my impression around: 4 years, in fact. But so far I remain skeptical.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I do not know which Trump will show up at the Oval office. I am hoping for a shrewd negotiator capable of bringing jobs back to upstate N​Y ​and West Virginia. My general opinion that he is more democrat then republican is not the reason I voted for him nor is it my intention to suggest it is OK he lied to his supporters. I mean to suggest that if one is afraid of Trump because he ran Republican one can relax a little, because he talks about two corinthians and obviously is not a bible reader. More to suggest the protestors relax than to suggest a reason why I voted for him.

 

Actual reason I voted for him was that I liked what he said more than what Hilary said, in terms of where I want to see the country go. I was thinking at the polls that I would like to vote a write

-in for Kasich, but I did not know the procedure, it would take time and hold up the line, and it would not matter anyway since NJs electoral votes were going for Hillary anyway.

 

Regards, TAR

SwansonT,

 

Well then I will go with honesty. Back my president when he does good things and call him out when he does the wrong thing.

 

Regards, TAR

I am not afraid because he ran as a Repubblican. I am afraid because we elected a president without anyone, including his strongest supporters, having any idea of what his actual positions were. He was elected as a partisan knee jerk response. He has no gov't experience, has shown himself to not know much about the issues, and as a business man has a history of making other people bare the cost of his losses.

 

Other than hope there is no logical reason based on anything he has done or said in his life to assume he'll make a good President. It is very telling that despite all of his professed business experience he failed to get any meaningful endorsedments from the business community. People who know Trump didn't vote for him.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I got a pretty good idea from the campaign as to what he might try to do. And specifically, since in my personal life and the life of my town, I am concerned about the heroin coming out of Paterson. I liked Trumps stance on the border, I liked his statements that he will be a law and order president and would attempt to shut down the drugs streaming across our southern borders and crack down on the gangs destroying the quality of life in our cities. And he specifically said that improving the infrastructure and bringing jobs back to the cities from Mexico and China, would help the situation of working class people in the cities whatever their color. I don't know what you were listening to during the campaign, but he talked about these actual positions at every rally he held.

 

 

But I was thinking this afternoon about this thread, and was wondering what would be the desired outcome of the protests. That Trump NOT try to enable the policies he has promoted? That people should obstruct him so that conservatives don't get to steer the country in a direction other than it has been heading in the last 8 years in terms of jobs going overseas and industries shutting down and small businesses not being able to handle the expense of compliance with federal regulations and the effects on personal freedom of regulations on everything coming out of the Washington Elite? That Trump be locked up and Hilary be voted in by faithless electors in Dec? That voicing grievances would temper Trumps approach? What?

 

The election has already happened and 60 million have said yes to Trump and 61 million said no to Trump and another 100 million had no good person to come out and vote for. (outside of the other candidates from minor parties and write-ins) but the electoral college system has said the country wants Trump. Protests against his stances can and will certainly continue, but the objections to him have already been voiced. What do the protesters hope happens?

 

Regards, TAR

[MigL]

Jobs haven't been leaving for overseas just during the last 8 yrs, tar.

It has been going on a lot longer than that, and is part of a globalization process that has upsides and downsides.

Losing jobs in sectors where we're not competitive is only a downside because ALL previous governments have ignored that demographic which lost those ( unskilled but hi pay ) jobs to foreign labor. We'll see what D Trump does .

 

I don't have a problem with protest.

It is guaranteed by the system which allowed D Trump to win this election, and is called democracy.

I have a problem with violent protests.

Democracy doesn't say you can protest the President by throwing a brick through my window.

[waitforufo]

The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Lots of anger right now. More however have moved on to bargaining and depression. Soon however there will be acceptance.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I got a pretty good idea from the campaign as to what he might try to do. And specifically, since in my personal life and the life of my town, I am concerned about the heroin coming out of Paterson. I liked Trumps stance on the border, I liked his statements that he will be a law and order president and would attempt to shut down the drugs streaming across our southern borders and crack down on the gangs destroying the quality of life in our cities. And he specifically said that improving the infrastructure and bringing jobs back to the cities from Mexico and China, would help the situation of working class people in the cities whatever their color. I don't know what you were listening to during the campaign, but he talked about these actual positions at every rally he held.

 

 

But I was thinking this afternoon about this thread, and was wondering what would be the desired outcome of the protests. That Trump NOT try to enable the policies he has promoted? That people should obstruct him so that conservatives don't get to steer the country in a direction other than it has been heading in the last 8 years in terms of jobs going overseas and industries shutting down and small businesses not being able to handle the expense of compliance with federal regulations and the effects on personal freedom of regulations on everything coming out of the Washington Elite? That Trump be locked up and Hilary be voted in by faithless electors in Dec? That voicing grievances would temper Trumps approach? What?

 

The election has already happened and 60 million have said yes to Trump and 61 million said no to Trump and another 100 million had no good person to come out and vote for. (outside of the other candidates from minor parties and write-ins) but the electoral college system has said the country wants Trump. Protests against his stances can and will certainly continue, but the objections to him have already been voiced. What do the protesters hope happens?

 

Regards, TAR

"Here's what I would tell Republicans: We cannot sit on the sidelines as a party and let allegations against a foreign government interfering in our election process go unanswered because it may have been beneficial to our cause," - Lindsey Graham

 

“With the U.S. presidential transition underway, Vladi­mir Putin has said in recent days that he wants to improve relations with the United States,” McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement released by his office.

“We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies and attempted to undermine America’s elections,” - John McCain

 

Republicans like Senators Graham and McCain are expressing concern yet you ask dismissively why people bother to protest. No one likes to feel cheated. No one likes to be lied to. The sovereignty of this nation may have been compromised. The protesters want some due diligence. If it is true, that this election was stolen or corrupted by a foriegn nation, than we should all be thank you there are protestors and members of the Senate willing to speak up. Hillary Clinton had 2 formal inquiries as a candidate. Is it really so unfair to ask for a little due diligence for Trump?

[Delta1212]

Ten Oz,

 

I got a pretty good idea from the campaign as to what he might try to do. And specifically, since in my personal life and the life of my town, I am concerned about the heroin coming out of Paterson. I liked Trumps stance on the border, I liked his statements that he will be a law and order president and would attempt to shut down the drugs streaming across our southern borders and crack down on the gangs destroying the quality of life in our cities. And he specifically said that improving the infrastructure and bringing jobs back to the cities from Mexico and China, would help the situation of working class people in the cities whatever their color. I don't know what you were listening to during the campaign, but he talked about these actual positions at every rally he held.

 

 

But I was thinking this afternoon about this thread, and was wondering what would be the desired outcome of the protests. That Trump NOT try to enable the policies he has promoted? That people should obstruct him so that conservatives don't get to steer the country in a direction other than it has been heading in the last 8 years in terms of jobs going overseas and industries shutting down and small businesses not being able to handle the expense of compliance with federal regulations and the effects on personal freedom of regulations on everything coming out of the Washington Elite? That Trump be locked up and Hilary be voted in by faithless electors in Dec? That voicing grievances would temper Trumps approach? What?

 

The election has already happened and 60 million have said yes to Trump and 61 million said no to Trump and another 100 million had no good person to come out and vote for. (outside of the other candidates from minor parties and write-ins) but the electoral college system has said the country wants Trump. Protests against his stances can and will certainly continue, but the objections to him have already been voiced. What do the protesters hope happens?

 

Regards, TAR

Every election is, to an extent, a cultural referendum as much as a political one. In looking purely at potential political outcomes and objectives, I think you miss out on the possibility of cultural ones.

 

Regardless of the intentions of individual voters who supported Trump, it is a fact that racist and white nationalist groups have been celebrating his victory in a big way and proceeding under the assumption that the country agrees with their views.

 

It's entirely possible and, I think, even rather likely that a primary motivator behind a lot of the protest is as a pushback against this premise, challenging it through vocal opposition both so that those who subscribe to those ideas and those who are afraid of them don't take silence as agreement.

[Ten oz]

Every election is, to an extent, a cultural referendum as much as a political one. In looking purely at potential political outcomes and objectives, I think you miss out on the possibility of cultural ones.

 

Regardless of the intentions of individual voters who supported Trump, it is a fact that racist and white nationalist groups have been celebrating his victory in a big way and proceeding under the assumption that the country agrees with their views.

 

It's entirely possible and, I think, even rather likely that a primary motivator behind a lot of the protest is as a pushback against this premise, challenging it through vocal opposition both so that those who subscribe to those ideas and those who are afraid of them don't take silence as agreement.

As have Russian based cyber attackers who believe they successful corrupted our election. Perhaps neither, Russians or white nationalist groups, deserves any credit for Trumps win or had any direct connection with his campaign but it should still give of pause.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

You and Delta1212 have good points indeed. We should, about the Russians, certainly probe the situation and determine if Trump's empire benefits from lifting the sanctions and if there were backroom deals or suspicious agreements that would benefit Trump, hurting Hilary. But a couple buts. Nobody is denying the content of the e-mails and when WikiLeaks brings embarrassment to the Russians, or to the political party we do not favor, we think of it as shining light on a dark place. And in that, we have a history of protecting the whistleblower, not demonizing them. Swings both ways of course like many revered Snowden and I thought him a stupid man, and an enemy of America.

 

I saw a member of congress this morning say that one day the Russians might wake up and wonder how "that" happened, but he suggested it not wise to telegraph our response, and that the cyber world was a new battlefield.

 

And even if Trump would benefit from the lifting of the sanctions, so would anyone dealing with Russia and so would the Russian people, so a particular deal between Putin and Trump would have to be proved. Innuendo is not enough. If it were, then Russia owning a percentage of our Uranium would put Bill and Hillary in jail.

 

Delta1212,

 

I am very sensitive to that cultural direction change, and am scared of its downsides the same as everyone else. I do not want to see our principles of equal rights and civil rights and rule of law, and tolerance for other religious views than our own, be compromised by white supremacy reaction. But there are upsides, in terms of expecting personal responsibility and rewarding success and excellence that counter balance the risks, and fortunately hate crimes are illegal and anybody committing a crime against another's person or property stands the good chance of being arrested.

 

Where I might not mind a little pullback from PC is where the power of the government comes down on the side of a certain group of people at the expense of another. If the law does not benefit 90 percent of the population, it is questionable to bring it, as a law. Protecting minorities and making sure they are treated equally by the law is one thing. But using your governmental power to benefit, say women over men, would be a misuse of power. As such, sexism and racism and xenophobia and homophobia should not be criminal offenses. Abridging the rights of a woman, or an Indian or an Irishman, or a gay man should certainly be punished, but none of these groups should receive special rights not afforded the rest of the population. What is in people's hearts and the god they honor, and the way they want to see the people around them behave is part of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing. Government has a role in creating an even playing field, but not in tilting the playing field to the advantage of any class or characteristic. These boosts up, come from the hearts of folks. From charity and acts of kindness and consideration for people you see getting a raw deal and you do something to make it a little better.

 

With that thought in mind, I ask the protesters to give the people that voted for Trump the benefit of the doubt, and to expect that people will continue to love and take care of each other, and arrest and prosecute anybody breaking the law and abridging the rights of any man woman or child.

 

Where there might though be unfairness is in the case of people that came forward as undocumented to be recognized by the country with the promise of no ill affects, that now might very well be found, because they trusted the promise of the government, and sent back to their country of origin. This would be a breech of faith, and I can understand the anger of people, drawn out of the shadows by a promise, that now might have their lives destroyed and their family broken up. But I do hope the protests reach Trump's heart a little, and he understands that a promise made to anyone by Obama, was a promise made by me and by every citizen of the U.S. including him, and consideration of this promise should still be maintained, as he deports those dangerous to our union.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 17, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Ten Oz,

 

You and Delta1212 have good points indeed. We should, about the Russians, certainly probe the situation and determine if Trump's empire benefits from lifting the sanctions and if there were backroom deals or suspicious agreements that would benefit Trump, hurting Hilary. But a couple buts. Nobody is denying the content of the e-mails and when WikiLeaks brings embarrassment to the Russians, or to the political party we do not favor, we think of it as shining light on a dark place. And in that, we have a history of protecting the whistleblower, not demonizing them. Swings both ways of course like many revered Snowden and I thought him a stupid man, and an enemy of America.

 

 

 

Whistleblowers are insiders who expose illegal/fraudulent activity. People who gain illegal entry to get and disseminate information are criminals, not whistleblowers. If someone hacked you and got your credit card information and gave it to someone else, I suspect you would demonize them rather than laud them as whistleblowers. Not all "dark places" are bad.

 

(Further, whistleblowers cease to be whistleblowers when they jump outside the prescribed method of reporting the wrongdoing. Leaking information to the press is not whistleblowing according to the federal statute)

[tar]

swansonT,

 

I don't disagree with you. If Trump broke the law by contracting the illegal breach he would have done exactly what Nixon did. What WikiLeaks does is illegal. What Russia has done is illegal. What Snowden did was illegal. No argument.

 

Regards, TAR

Just for instance, in talking about an illegal act being the responsibility of the benificiary...I saw a report about an Indiana voter registration group that submitted a few fraudulent voter registration forms because workers not reaching the quota of 10 registrations per hour might not be asked to continue working there. Would you feel differently about the responsibility for the fraud being on the person paying the workers if it was a left leaning or right leaning employer? If it was an independent group would you put the leader of the group in jail? If it was left leaning would you put Hilary in jail? If it was right leaning would you put Trump in jail?

 

I think in this case it was associated with Democratic organisations, but that was just the general feel of the person writing the article, they did not specify an organization. Would it matter to the election, as to which party hired the fraudulent registrars? The way I look at, you can take 10 off of Hilary's plurality at least, if not put her in jail for her role in the fraud, in the cell next to Trump for his role in the Russian breach.

Meaning, if someone did something illegal to effect the outcome of the election, they should be punished. I don't think it matters whether the perp is democrat or republican.

i lost the orignal article but here is another about the same situation in Indiana http://www.kcci.com/article/warrant-indiana-workers-submitted-bogus-voter-registrations/8294743

 

Related to charges of voter suppression by Pence and his state police, as well as charges of voter fraud, leveled at the dems. Reminds me of the FBI situation, where the FBI is alternately seen as a bastion of law and order or as a politically motivated body, depending on innuendo, and political party benefited by the findings.

Edited November 17, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Just for instance, in talking about an illegal act being the responsibility of the benificiary...

 

Who was talking about that?

 

I saw a report about an Indiana voter registration group that submitted a few fraudulent voter registration forms because workers not reaching the quota of 10 registrations per hour might not be asked to continue working there. Would you feel differently about the responsibility for the fraud being on the person paying the workers if it was a left leaning or right leaning employer? If it was an independent group would you put the leader of the group in jail? If it was left leaning would you put Hilary in jail? If it was right leaning would you put Trump in jail?

Neither of the candidates was involved in any way with this. Why would they go to jail?

 

I think in this case it was associated with Democratic organisations, but that was just the general feel of the person writing the article, they did not specify an organization. Would it matter to the election, as to which party hired the fraudulent registrars? The way I look at, you can take 10 off of Hilary's plurality at least, if not put her in jail for her role in the fraud, in the cell next to Trump for his role in the Russian breach.

 

Meaning, if someone did something illegal to effect the outcome of the election, they should be punished. I don't think it matters whether the perp is democrat or republican.

I agree. You punish the people who perpetrated the act. The people, that, by the way, were fired for doing what they did. The organization flagged registrations that they believed to be incorrect, regardless of whether the errors were intentional or not, in accordance with the law (according to your link)

 

i lost the orignal article but here is another about the same situation in Indiana http://www.kcci.com/article/warrant-indiana-workers-submitted-bogus-voter-registrations/8294743

[iNow]

I understand why the people are in the street. They do not want America to turn ugly and treat blacks and Muslims badly. Neither do I, but I am not in the streets, because I am hoping such does not occur, and I am hoping Trump does what he says he can do, and bring productive businesses back to the cities and depressed areas of our country. And I am blaming you guys, for the division in our country. You say I don't see it

I am reminded of you (and far too many others) when seeing this, TAR:

 

 

 

Wherein others here are having what one might call a "more appropriate response," like this: https://thenib.com/this-is-not-fine

[Ten oz]

swansonT,

 

I don't disagree with you. If Trump broke the law by contracting the illegal breach he would have done exactly what Nixon did. What WikiLeaks does is illegal. What Russia has done is illegal. What Snowden did was illegal. No argument.

 

Regards, TAR

Just for instance, in talking about an illegal act being the responsibility of the benificiary...I saw a report about an Indiana voter registration group that submitted a few fraudulent voter registration forms because workers not reaching the quota of 10 registrations per hour might not be asked to continue working there. Would you feel differently about the responsibility for the fraud being on the person paying the workers if it was a left leaning or right leaning employer? If it was an independent group would you put the leader of the group in jail? If it was left leaning would you put Hilary in jail? If it was right leaning would you put Trump in jail?

 

I think in this case it was associated with Democratic organisations, but that was just the general feel of the person writing the article, they did not specify an organization. Would it matter to the election, as to which party hired the fraudulent registrars? The way I look at, you can take 10 off of Hilary's plurality at least, if not put her in jail for her role in the fraud, in the cell next to Trump for his role in the Russian breach.

Meaning, if someone did something illegal to effect the outcome of the election, they should be punished. I don't think it matters whether the perp is democrat or republican.

i lost the orignal article but here is another about the same situation in Indiana http://www.kcci.com/article/warrant-indiana-workers-submitted-bogus-voter-registrations/8294743

 

Related to charges of voter suppression by Pence and his state police, as well as charges of voter fraud, leveled at the dems. Reminds me of the FBI situation, where the FBI is alternately seen as a bastion of law and order or as a politically motivated body, depending on innuendo, and political party benefited by the findings.

Why must you follow such clear statements with theoretical argruments asking what if it had been the other way around. It wasn't. Hillary Clinton has been accussed of wrong doing in her life and full investigations at the high levels happened. We have even had congressional hearings about Hillary Clinton investigations once they had already be completed. Due diligence has been done with regards to every suspicion there has been of Hillary Clinton. In my opinion it is nothing more than a deflection of you to ask "if it were left leaning would you put Hillary in jail". Trump encouraged crowds to chant "lock her up" and told the whole nation during a debate that he would direct the DOJ to put her in prison. All that despite the fact that the FBI had and concluded their case against Clinton in her favor.

 

As a Candidate Donald Trump received Intelligence briefings. Donald Trump was told by U.S. Intelligence that the hacks against the DNC were Russian. After those briefings Donald Trump continued to encourage his supporters to look at the hacked material and openly celebrated the idea of more of them. Even more troubling in that Donald Trump, after receiving briefings telling his otherwises, continued to argue in public that we did not know where the hacks came from and that they may have been from China. Nothing like this for comparison has ever happened before. Trump literally ignored information given to him during intelligence briefings, encouraged supporters to support the Russian hacks by being audience to them, and accused other nations who were not involved of being responsible. You cannot dismiss that as just being politics. You cannot possibly feel so oppressed as a white male that this is acceptable because the person you voted for got the win.

 

3 times we know of for sure Trump either ignored or outright lied about information he received from U.S. Intelligence :

- Claimed he was shown a video of a money exchange with Iran, he was not.

- Claimed that the U.S. Intelligence members who briefed him expressed displeasure with Obama. Never happened.

- Was briefed that the DNC were done by Russia and then continued campaigning that it may have been the Chinese.

[tar]

iNow,

 

The gang wars in Chicago is the fire I am concerned with. Not some fear of yours that the KKK will be normalized in my heart.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Ten Oz,

 

I do not know what intelligence briefings have been given to Trump, and when. They are private. He mistook a photo of the plane transferring hostages for the plane carrying a pallet of money and clarified. The cash was still transferred though.

 

I am not saying Trump has not lied and misdirected. But some stories are complex and someone looks at the facts and says they mean one thing and the important thing is this and the other says they mean another and the important thing is that. For instance, to you, it is important that Trump campaigned that there was a picture showing a pallet of cash and it was untrue. To me the important thing is that there was a cash deal at the same time that Hostages were released. Or with the FBI description of Hillary and the e-mails, she said she did not send or receive any e-mails marked classified, when the FBI said she did. You say that the FBI cleared her of any wrongdoing, which is inaccurate. The director accused her of being very carless and incorrectly stating she did not have classified information on the server and she admits she made mistakes. Depends on ones feeling of what is wrongdoing. There wasn't anything reported, but let us say that there was one email found on Anthony's laptop that was government record, that was inappropriate, containing either state business not turned over or classified information...that is all it would take, for Hilary to have lied to congress. One.

 

But there are things we don't know, and inaccurate reports and someone saying they feel this way or that when the feeling is projected and may not be the truth. Today I saw a report that Ford had decided to keep production of Lincolns in a plant in Kentucky and Trump claimed he influenced Ford to keep the jobs there. Other reports show that Ford is obligated by agreement with the UAW to not close plants until 2019, insinuating that Trump was inappropriately taking credit for something that had nothing to do with him and therefore was lying. There may be another reality though, where what Trump has said, during the election, and what he has talked about directly with Ford, that production that was being considered to be moved to Mexico, that may now be retained in Kentucky. I am not privy to the discussions, nor are you. If jobs were saved, or will be saved, then Trump may have been effective in protecting those jobs, like he says. Making it, not a lie.

 

Regards, TAR

My take on the e-mails was that she was secretary of state and would have to have knowledge of classified materials, all such knowledge not being transferred by mouth or written letter. Some of her correspondences with advisors and confidants where made through her server and some of these topics must have included aspects that were classified. She made these communications while in foreign countries, going through communication equipment not under the control of the U.S.. Her communications were not properly encrypted by government systems and may have been compromised. No proof of such, but the danger is there, and she put our private stuff carelessly in such danger. It is this I consider the facts of the situation, and is exactly what the FBI said.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Two things:

 

There is no actual evidence that Trump had any influence on Ford's decision. However, even if we assume that he did:

 

He claimed that he negotiated with Ford to prevent them from moving a plant out of Kentucky. What actually happened is that Ford decided not to move production of a specific line of Lincoln's out of that Kentucky plant, which they were considering doing in order to allow them to produce more of a different line of Ford cars at that plant.

 

So at no point were any jobs at that Kentucky plant on the line. It was only ever a question of which product the plant was going to be producing.

 

Yet Donald Trump explicitly claimed that he saved the plant itself from being closed down and moved out of the state.

[Phi for All]

I am reminded of you (and far too many others) when seeing this, TAR:

 

I'm seeing Trump's Misleading Vividness strategy succeeding with the fearful. He implies things that are so crazy and ludicrous, that when he backs off to the merely horrible level, conservatives say to themselves, "Oh, well, THAT's not so bad!", denying the fact that if he'd started out with horrible, these same conservatives would have slammed the door on him.