What if the Electors Change their Vote on Monday? Could Hillary Reach 270?

Yeah, someone might have disagreed with a position that he is a rapist and a murderer (based on the ethnic origin). It's not views; your guy threw civility out of the window. Also, again, "white power" kids with Trump sign, and many other instances of open hostility or outright hate crime from people super-pumped by Trump win.

 

Don't forget the Emolument Clause; I think it's quite clever too!

 

There are 16 days left until Obama is removed from the presidency. However, there is a concern that Obama's erratic and retaliatory decisions will plunge the United States into military conflict before Trump can be sworn in as president, thus leaving Trump to clean up Obama's incompetent decisions. Obama has now authorized U.S. Special Forces to be sent to the Russian border to strike back against Putin. Here is the link:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2531054/america-special-forces-russian-border-lithuania-obama-putin/

The world will be a significantly safer place once Obama is removed from office.

 

In other words, Trump will defer more to Russian cleptocracy than to NATO allies (or U. S. Intelligence community). This is treasonous. Also, that was precisely my point

 

Please recollect the following:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Please click here for reference.

 

Whatever. I stand by it. Trump was widely known as Putin-preferred alternative (hackers or no hackers); his voters chose to ignore it, as well as many other unsavory things about him. So all the highly predictable effects of his victory are partially on them. Hate crime wave is the more obvious example.

 

It makes me wonder why you insist on quoting a man who was literally Hitler's second in command.
As for Obama acting to protect allies in Eastern Europe, I only wish he did more of it, and sooner. Eg., more military aid to Ukraine, including lethal defensive weapons (anti-tank man-portable missiles would be especially helpful), as both parties in Congress called for. That would help prevent war rather than start it.

 

As a Trump supporter, I don't know why stories like these even get out. Why the guy didn't just say "cool, thanks" and let the people go on their way? Bad for the brand.

 

Herman Goering is quoted to demonstrate that the Socialist propaganda methodology is still in use today. The American mainstream media repeats a scripted fake news mantra under the delusion that “if a lie is told often enough, then Americans will believe it.” That was also the proposed methodology of Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany – and it is copycatted by the American mainstream media’s “scripted fake news,” which people are supposed to believe. Much can be learned from history.

The American people have rejected the mainstream media’s “scripted fake news,” as is evidenced by the election of Donald Trump. Every mainstream media outlet predicted Trump’s scripted political defeat, but the American people rejected that scripted fake news. The DNC socialists are helpless and are unable to stop Trump's progressive political and economic reforms.

God bless the United States, Donald Trump and the American people. Make America great again!

 

Scripted Fake News

Here is an interesting article about "scripted fake news" from the American media:

Title: WashPost is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

Author: Glenn Greenwald

Snip: "In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note, grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom."

Source:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

 

Yep. Agreed.

 

So if Clinton would have been the alleged "Putin-preferred alternative", all other things being the same, your allegiances would have swung in favor of Trump? Wow. That guy and the Russian propaganda has more power and influence than I thought. Let's hope that he never comes out against Cancer!

 

Scripted Fake News

All prejudice is bad, to include reverse-prejudice, as the article below aptly demonstrates. However, the article goes against the mainstream media's "scripted fake news":

Title: Facebook Live video shows disabled man tied up, beaten as captors yell 'F--- white people!'

Author: Lisa Chavarria

Snip: A white man was bound, duct-taped and tortured by four African-Americans who yelled anti-Trump and racial slurs, while broadcasting the ordeal on Facebook Live. The suspects can be heard saying they want the video to go viral. The video shows:
- the victim being repeatedly kicked and hit, while his scalp was cut.
- the white victim cowering at knifepoint while being told to curse president-elect Trump.
- forcing the victim to drink out of a toilet.
The victim was kept tied up with his mouth taped shut for over 24 hours. A Facebook spokesman said the company removed the video because...

Linked Source: 4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live | WFLD

 

Well, if Clinton was on record supporting policies that advance Putin's murderous agenda (such as weakening NATO and giving him free hand in Syria), and praising the man himself, she'd be a very different candidate, very hard to support. Of course, she was not that candidate, Trump was, wasn't he?

It is well-known that Kremlin supports fringe populists in Euripe, both Hard Right and Hard Left; Trump in some aspects fits the mold perfectly. Besides, he is basically English-speaking version of a Russian oligarch, easier to "deal" with. He also owns various opaque business interests easy to pour money into. Putin controls vast amounts of illicit wealth (one examplehere that can be easily used to directly bribe anyone so inclined.

As to the amount of "power" Putin holds, you can ask MH17 passengers. Oh wait, you can't. People seem to forget we're talking about a mass murderer, with a well-oiled money machine and control of the second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Pivoting to propaganda: as famous Russian TV host reminded on national TV, Russia is "the only country that can reduce the USA to radioactive dust" (complete with stock photo of the mushroom cloud) (one report here). Yes, I've seen the clip in original Russian. The man's name is Dmitry Kiselyov; he's a recipient of the same Order of Friendship as Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (you must be very proud). He is a bona fide TV star, but for his shrill propaganda efforts since 2011 Putin gave him another order (Order for Merit to the Fatherland, 4th degree) and promotion to head of the new Rossiya Segodnya agency (essentially open foreign propaganda arm of the Kremlin).

As the hacking story is new and muddled, you might want to read this report:
How Has Russia Weaponized Information?

or this:
The Menace of Unreality:
How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money

You'll see that the WikiLeaks leak would fit perfectly into the "information warfare" they wage for years, so the story is no surprise for anyone who kind of follows that part of international politics. (Again, I do not care if the actual Podesta leak was an actual spetzoperatzia or just happy coincident - although the coincident is way too happy to be real).

 

Friend, it's hard to rail against "mainstream media's scripted fake news" if you link a mainstream media news story. Seriously, how do you reconcile this in your head? BTW, I turned TV on last night and by chance caught a whole segment on CNN about this exact story. What gives?

There were literally dozens of reports of anti-minority outbursts following the Trump win; all you demonstrate is that one can find ONE documented instance of the reverse. Well yes, yes you can. Except Trump is repeatedly on tape condoning his supporters' violence ("I'll pay his legal fees"), and Hillary is not, ever.

In fact, there's a reason not many "political outsiders" won high public office. A seasoned politician would never say "punch him, will ya", "I'll pay his legal fees", "in good old times, they'd carry him out on a stretcher", "the judge is biased because he's Mexican", "she had blood coming out of her wherever", "they're rapists, murderers", and, crown jewel, "you can do anything... grab her by the p####" and keep his/her career. They would instinctively know that keeping members of a whole religion out of the country violates the Constitution (Christ, the country tolerates Scientology - and this cult's high official and the demideity's wife was convicted of a plot to break into multiple government offices to steal documents; that's not to mention what they do to the "members"). They would not lie about "Muslims celebrating on roofs" and stick to the story. They'd know you have to quickly rule out national registries and special IDs for members og ethnic-religious groups - because this is a distinct Nazi policy. They'd know, on semiautomatic, to disavow and condemn the KKK "supporters". In short, they would not openly pander to white male base like this. They would know not to pick fights with beauty queens and war heroes. And, oh yeah, they would show their blasted tax returns. Their team would be able to answer, for example, whether the President-Elect still owns interest in Freddie and Fannie and therefore gained millions due to his appointee's public comments.

Even Trump's own creep of a VP knows and practices all these gestures (and yes, Bernie knows this as well); it's how you can tell an American official from a two-bit Third World dictator. Since America is an example to the world, global governance culture just took a step backwards. Gee, thanks.

 

The cited story is not from the leftist mainstream media, but is from Fox News, which is on the right and which generally deviates from the mainstream media's "scripted fake news." After the reverse-prejudice was reported by Fox News, the mainstream media followed suit, albeit toned down.

 

:laugh:

Same difference; it was reported by one corporate-controlled outlet and repeated by every. single. one. of the other major outlets. Thus disproving your point.

Generally, it's the apex of hypocrisy for Trumpablicans to complain about the media (started by The Donald himself). The "liberal" media spent inordinate amount of screen time promoting the Trump brand for him during this campaign; other than that, the biggest story all across the media spectrum was "Clinton e-mails", followed by Clinton Foundation nontroversies (sic). They helped you win, more than anyone on Earth (yes, more than even Putin. Just teasing; Bannon, I meant Bannon ).

 

In your own words, what exactly is so objectionable about Clinton Foundation? From where I stand, it looks like it prompted "questions" about possible "inappropriate access". In other words, in decades of existence and after numerous lives saved, CF generated the level of controversy Trump easily exceeded in about 20 minutes, by allowing Ivanka to sit in on a meeting with the PM of Japan. Not impressed. Also, this might be a topic of conversation between supporters of Clinton and Sanders; Trump fans should not utter the word "ethics", ok?

Read this: Isaac Azimov, Relativity of Wrong. By this logic, claim that "neither Trump nor Clinton belong anywhere near political power" is wronger than "Clinton Foundation "controversies" are all bogus". Truth is, Hillary Clinton is a worthy candidate with infuriating family knack of inviting PR disasters, while Trump is "singularly unqualified for office" tabloid fodder. Who will be Commander in Chief in two weeks. Yippee!