The Trump Presidency – 2016

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No other presidents had regular news conferences before they were in office or had completed their cabinet.

Incorrect.

Donald Trump during transition holds fewer press conferences than past presidents-elect - CBS News

FTA:

in comparison to the several most recent administrations, Trump is demonstrably behind on his engagement with the press.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting opinion from a Democrat. I continue to be amazed at how many politically-motivated people are missing that Trump is clearly drawing the line in the sand with something as simple as a chat with Taiwan.

I'm a Democrat but I've gotta admit it's now Trump 2, Dems 0 | Fox News

I still don't get what the advantage of a trade war with China is. A 35% tax on all Americans who don't work in factories? I know China makes a nice boogeyman but most of those jobs are being lost to automation.

I'm sure jobs can be brought back if we're fine paying over $1000 for a phone and $40,000 for a new car. But do people want that so that a small percent of the population has their old jobs back?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting opinion from a Democrat. I continue to be amazed at how many politically-motivated people are missing that Trump is clearly drawing the line in the sand with something as simple as a chat with Taiwan.

I'm a Democrat but I've gotta admit it's now Trump 2, Dems 0 | Fox News

Economists in liberal enclaves pushed for “globalization,” arguing that cheap goods made abroad would fatten the pocketbooks of all us back here in the United States.

This is a patently incorrect misrepresentation of the policy. His use of the term liberal enclaves on Fox is directed at those that the typical Fox reader gets all excited about. However, the correct term should be classical liberalism. ---

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress.

This leads into...


Market Liberalism Law & Legal Definition. Market liberalism a political theory in which market forces is allowed to develop without outside interference. It emphasizes the support to free markets by combining free market economy with personal liberty and human rights.

Which is exactly what Republicans have had as the main plank in their economic policy for as long as I can remember. It's become the anchor post of the entire Tea Party like some Ayn Randian economic dream.

Globalism is the natural extension of Market Liberalism. Trump has successfully allowed the Republican party to now somehow disown this when Democrats have been trying to play that game for generations.

Further, he goes on to say that this was supposed to fatten the pockets of everyone in the US. Money saved by getting progressively cheaper and cheaper products that the average citizen wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, is one way to play that game, but for the sake of this argument, you'd be a fool to believe that everyone gets fat stacks in their pocketbooks in the US. Someone has gotten fat stacks and that trickle down hasn't been exactly what we were promised either.

This argument can't have it's cake and eat it too. You don't get to divorce your stance on free global markets now because your guy doesn't believe in them, and you don't get to turn around and blame all of what did happen because of them on the other guy, when it's been the wet dream of so many on your side of the aisle.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

LOL. This is a bit ridiculous. He's doing a lot of stuff, but he's not even president yet. If he starts skipping out on regular press conferences once he's in office, then we'll talk. He's just making a victory tour right now and little else. No other presidents had regular news conferences before they were in office or had completed their cabinet.

He's already doing it. Between his only giving interviews to certain journalists, calling for sanctions against the press and limiting what and how they report, and his preference for using Twitter as a media platform. It's not hard to follow the trail. His attitudes and past behaviors are completely usable here as a basis to how he might act in the future.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Now you have a segment of the population who doesn't believe a word they say and gets caught up in dopey conspiracy theories.

It doesn't help either that our President-elect is a conspiracy theorist. He surrounds himself and gives credibility to them too.

Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter. It's just a game of propaganda at this point by extremists. Everyone in the middle now gets screwed by it.

Donald Trump Fires Transition Team Member Michael G. Flynn For Spreading Fake News About 'Pizzagate'

Michael G. Flynn is the son of Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Donald Trump’s pick for national security adviser. Flynn the younger was his father’s chief of staff and top adviser until very recently, when he found himself out of a job for spreading fake news on Twitter about the conspiracy theory surrounding pizzeria Comet Ping Pong and a child sex ring run on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

He's doing a lot of stuff, but he's not even president yet.

He's just making a victory tour right now and little else.

Which is it?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

He's already doing it. Between his only giving interviews to certain journalists, calling for sanctions against the press and limiting what and how they report, and his preference for using Twitter as a media platform. It's not hard to follow the trail. His attitudes and past behaviors are completely usable here as a basis to how he might act in the future.

Trump has never had to report to anyone (I'd argue even his father, who just bailed him out whenever he got in trouble) other than himself. And that's basically what press conferences and dealings with the media are - being held accountable and having to defend your actions. I don't think he's about to start doing that now. He'll give carefully controlled speeches and hold rallies, but he's not about to field questions he has no control over.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If China were to invade Taiwan and take it over with force, the US would be pressured much more to do something about it with official diplomatic status rather than as an un-official position. As it is right now, we provide weapons as a deterrence to Chinese aggression, but the lack of full diplomatic presence is what keeps our noses clean if China went full Stalin, and gives us an out in a war we don't want to be a part of.

I'd say the Six Assurances we continually re-authorize would put much more pressure on us to defend Taiwan than if we treated them as a normal country. It's not like we went to war with Russia over the Ukraine.

(Plus the idealist in me thinks Taiwan has paid its dues and deserves to be treated as a real nation, but I've always hated realpolitik.)

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't get what the advantage of a trade war with China is. A 35% tax on all Americans who don't work in factories? I know China makes a nice boogeyman but most of those jobs are being lost to automation.

I'm sure jobs can be brought back if we're fine paying over $1000 for a phone and $40,000 for a new car. But do people want that so that a small percent of the population has their old jobs back?

The average person doesn't understand diffuse effects on purchasing power and never will.

Originally Posted by digamma

They have been bias. Indeed. Bias itself. They have been.

I've completely given up on this one and dominate/dominant.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is a patently incorrect misrepresentation of the policy. His use of the term liberal enclaves on Fox is directed at those that the typical Fox reader gets all excited about. However, the correct term should be classical liberalism. ---

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress.

This leads into...


Market Liberalism Law & Legal Definition. Market liberalism a political theory in which market forces is allowed to develop without outside interference. It emphasizes the support to free markets by combining free market economy with personal liberty and human rights.

Which is exactly what Republicans have had as the main plank in their economic policy for as long as I can remember. It's become the anchor post of the entire Tea Party like some Ayn Randian economic dream.

Globalism is the natural extension of Market Liberalism. Trump has successfully allowed the Republican party to now somehow disown this when Democrats have been trying to play that game for generations.

Further, he goes on to say that this was supposed to fatten the pockets of everyone in the US. Money saved by getting progressively cheaper and cheaper products that the average citizen wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, is one way to play that game, but for the sake of this argument, you'd be a fool to believe that everyone gets fat stacks in their pocketbooks in the US. Someone has gotten fat stacks and that trickle down hasn't been exactly what we were promised either.

This argument can't have it's cake and eat it too. You don't get to divorce your stance on free global markets now because your guy doesn't believe in them, and you don't get to turn around and blame all of what did happen because of them on the other guy, when it's been the wet dream of so many on your side of the aisle.

I just want to highlight this post because I think you did a great job in explaining things here. Globalization being foisted on liberals (as in those on the left) is a strange thing as conservatives have been just as eager, if not more so to engage in globalization (GHW Bush negotiated NAFTA after all). Traditionally the party of free trade has been the Republicans. It's only recently that the Democrats have been that (since Bill Clinton, which was considered quite a shift).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I've completely given up on this one and dominate/dominant.

Thank you, I have noticed this one, too. It actually bugs me even more than dominant/dominate. It just sounds so wrong in my head.

[Neon_Chaos]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...ource=facebook

[Easy Mac]

I'm playing a daily game of True or False with my wife, where I give her 2 Trump stories and she has to tell me which is true.

This goes along with my thinking of, is there anything you could be presented as a Trump story where you could say, "you know what, there's no chance that's true."

[JPhillips]

"Donald Trump Sells Businesses to Avoid Conflicts"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...ource=facebook

LOL she donated a ton to his "charity". Way to drain that swamp!

[ISiddiqui]

It appears they picked my boss (SecLabor), Hardees/Carl Jr. CEO Andy Puzder. Apparently his big thing is that he's against raising the minimum wage... which is something Trump said he wanted to do (at least to $10/hr).

[PilotMan]

Trump's twitter battle with the head of the union at the Carrier plant and who he is putting in his cabinet are helping me to see that his desire to help workers only goes as far as helping workers by making sure that the company they work for is forced to stay in the US. It has nothing to do with fairness, quality of life, safety, and it has everything to do with the bottom line for the company.

Trump will be no supporter of unionized labor, and I'm guessing that his support for raising the minimum wage is pretty weak. I'm also guessing that if his advisors tell him that wages must be kept low so the company can "compete," then Trump will give them whatever they want to the detriment of the labor there. His response to the Union leader there of "get back to work" is straight up, classic owner/servant language. It's all about the owner, damn the worker, get back to work and be happy you have a job.

His nomination of Pudzer today just supports that argument.

[miked]

I was watching Fox News while working out the other day and heard somebody talking about how great these tax breaks will be for the workers. Apparently, it will add more profits to the balance sheets of Carrier and these other companies which of course means higher wages from workers. Because, according the expert, once companies like this get more cash, they give raises to workers. It's almost laughable if people did not actually believe it.

[PilotMan]

I really hope the Trump reigns in all these regulating agencies with too much power that waste all our money and hurt the lives of our citizens by keeping companies from being able to operate profitably here. If they could just let them be to run the way they choose we'd all be much better off.

https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/08/att-cramming-settlement/

The Federal Trade Commission has today announced in a blog post that AT&T will soon start refunding more than $88 million to customers affected by unauthorized charges on their monthly bills.

Back in 2014, AT&T reached a settlement with the FTC to pay out more than $80 million to affected subscribers, but only now are the carrier and government getting the ball rolling on those refunds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm guessing that his support for raising the minimum wage is pretty weak.

Which would almost certainly be the same as most of his voters' position on the subject.

That's pretty much DOA with every Trump voter I know.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which would almost certainly be the same as most of his voters' position on the subject.

That's pretty much DOA with every Trump voter I know.

Given your geographic location and the rabid support base in the south for Trump that's not surprising. When the historical economic basis of employment and corporate profit revolves around the success of a business being based on cheap labor that's bound to be a leading opinion.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

LOL she donated a ton to his "charity". Way to drain that swamp!

But the Clinton Foundation and E-MAILS. E-MAILS. E-MAILS.

[CraigSca]

Not what I expected.

Consumers, businesses, and CEOs are all loving life since Trump's election — and that's great news for the economy - AOL News

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which would almost certainly be the same as most of his voters' position on the subject.

That's pretty much DOA with every Trump voter I know.

Why raise minimum wage when you can pay for their Peach Care out of your taxes?

[ISiddiqui]

And I'd argue that some of Trump's support closer to the Great Lakes would actually be likely FOR increased minimum wages. It's a different type of Trump voter up there.

Anyway, speaking of Great Lakes, Vox had an interesting opinion article today about relocating some federal government offices (the ones that don't have to be right next to Congress or the WH to do their jobs) to the Midwest:

Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest - Vox

The poorest places in the United States have been poor for a very long time and lack the basic infrastructure of prosperity. But that’s not true in the Midwest, where cities were thriving two generations ago and where an enormous amount of infrastructure is in place. Midwestern states have acclaimed public university systems, airports that are large enough to serve as major hubs, and cities whose cultural legacies include major league pro sports teams, acclaimed museums, symphonies, theaters, and other amenities of big-city living.

But industrial decline has left these cities overbuilt, with shrunken populations that struggle to support the legacy infrastructure, and the infrastructure’s decline tends to only beget further regional decline.

At the same time, America’s major coastal cities are overcrowded. They suffer from endemic housing scarcity, massive traffic congestion, and a profound small-c political conservatism that prevents them from making the kind of regulatory changes that would allow them to build the new housing and infrastructure they need. Excess population that can’t be absorbed by the coasts tends to bounce to the growth-friendly cities of the Sunbelt that need to build anew what Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland already have in terms of infrastructure and amenities.

A sensible approach would be for the federal government to take the lead in rebalancing America’s allocation of population and resources by taking a good hard look at whether so much federal activity needs to be concentrated in Washington, DC, and its suburbs. Moving agencies out of the DC area to the Midwest would obviously cause some short-term disruptions. But in the long run, relocated agencies’ employees would enjoy cheaper houses, shorter commutes, and a higher standard of living, while Midwestern communities would see their population and tax base stabilized and gain new opportunities for complementary industries to grow.

In general, looking at which agencies are already not going through the trouble of locating themselves in downtown Washington is a decent signpost of which agencies’ core mission is not profoundly helped by proximity to the centers of political power.

These and other agencies moved out of DC years ago in search of more affordable real estate — a recognition that their mission does not require routine physical proximity to elected officials. Keeping this kind of agency near DC was, obviously, more convenient for existing staff who were spared the need to drastically relocate or find a new job elsewhere. But given the growing strains of regional inequality in the United States, it would make sense for Congress to insist on taking a broader view of the national interest. Many of these agencies have technical or scientific missions whose highly skilled workforce would be a tremendous asset to cities with proud legacies that are currently suffering from brain drain and population loss.

[larrymcg421]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/trump...-nbc-news.html

He must really want to know what was in those speeches.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Why raise minimum wage when you can pay for their Peach Care out of your taxes?

Raising the min. wage would just move many from under-employed to unemployed. No gain there at all.

And, philosophically, I'm opposed to both paying people more than they're worth AND to having government dictate wages to private employers.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I'd argue that some of Trump's support closer to the Great Lakes would actually be likely FOR increased minimum wages. It's a different type of Trump voter up there.

Anyway, speaking of Great Lakes, Vox had an interesting opinion article today about relocating some federal government offices (the ones that don't have to be right next to Congress or the WH to do their jobs) to the Midwest:

Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest - Vox

The Census Bureau already has its main processing center in Jeffersonville, IN, it's one of the largest employers in an otherwise economically depressed area.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I'd argue that some of Trump's support closer to the Great Lakes would actually be likely FOR increased minimum wages.

Then they're fucking idiots who must love higher unemployment.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then they're fucking idiots who must love higher unemployment.

Deplorable some would say.

[JPhillips]

I don't understand how:

lower minimum wage + fewer union jobs + more expensive Medicare + less Social Security + lower taxes for the top 20% = prosperity

[tarcone]

Its just going to be more of the same. No change in my taxes.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't understand how:

lower minimum wage + fewer union jobs + more expensive Medicare + less Social Security + lower taxes for the top 20% = prosperity

Well they'll be paying less taxes or something

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Deplorable some would say.

Well done

[JPhillips]

It's simply mind boggling that this will be swept under the rug. From the Washington Post:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's simply mind boggling that this will be swept under the rug. From the Washington Post:

'Cause ya know, there's no proof or anything. Nobody believes the government anyway, they all work for Obama so they can say whatever they want.

Yes, it represents a significant threat to our country that the process could be manipulated so easily. I'll throw this back to what Angus said earlier in his readings about "The Foundations of Geopolitics." It's very disturbing to delve into the old Soviet/Russian mindset that is set on the complete destabilization of the West, and the theory that it can be achieved through ploy and manipulation due to the nature of the structure of the society is both terrifying and brilliant.

[tarcone]

This did not make the difference. The silent majority was voting. Not because we know what everyone knows, you dont trust Hillary.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

'Cause ya know, there's no proof or anything. Nobody believes the government anyway, they all work for Obama so they can say whatever they want.

Yes, it represents a significant threat to our country that the process could be manipulated so easily. I'll throw this back to what Angus said earlier in his readings about "The Foundations of Geopolitics." It's very disturbing to delve into the old Soviet/Russian mindset that is set on the complete destabilization of the West, and the theory that it can be achieved through ploy and manipulation due to the nature of the structure of the society is both terrifying and brilliant.

The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street

[PilotMan]

The entire concept of the silent majority (pro tip, Trump didn't win the majority) is that of the great pumpkin who shows up to help if you only believe.

Are you really advocating a position of ignoring the fact that Russian hacker got into a highly strategic communication line and used it to keep a narrative of fraud and that all the public heard was emails. Hell, half the voters who don't pay attention thought those emails were on Hillary's server, and who in the Republican party was going to correct them?

Here you've got a strategic gain for one party in a close battle, but you've loosened the pillars of the country to do so, and now they've got to go back and recognize the threat it is, not wave their hands and say, "These aren't the Russians you're looking for."

So, back to the whole did not make a difference. Belichek cheated even when he had a superior team. Why? You can argue that it wouldn't have made a difference, you can't necessarily quantify that it did, but you can say that there was an advantage to be gained from it, otherwise it wasn't worth the effort. And to that I say, it did make a difference in some way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Its just going to be more of the same. No change in my taxes.

Won't impact most people now. Most likely a present for our kids and grandkids that will have to pay back the debt we'll incur from the tax cuts.

[Zinto]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This did not make the difference. The silent majority was voting. Not because we know what everyone knows, you dont trust Hillary.

Who cares at this point if it made a difference or not? Trump is the president regardless. What we should care about is that a foreign government was throwing it's weight around in our election. We need to figure out an appropriate response to that happening and I would hope that Trump and the other Republicans in power would want to lead that effort.

[tarcone]

Im sure that we have had an impact on a few major world powers elections as well.
I think this was just a lot more public than usual.

HRC must have gotten kicked around by Putin and he didnt respect her. Probably why Russia threw their weight behind Trump.
More bad diplomacy by HRC. She should have taken a tip from Claire Underwood.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's simply mind boggling that this will be swept under the rug. From the Washington Post:

That is, of course, disturbing.

But what about the content of those "wiki leaks?" Was anything FALSE?

I suppose Clinton didn't get fed debate questions for example.

The disturbing thing to me is how horrific and corrupt this entire system is. Of all the candidates out there, I can only think of one single guy who would have had little to no fear of leaks. And he wasn't one of the final candidates on the ballot.

The people we have running for office AND the parties they represent are corrupt to the core. But that's a story nobody wants to hear. MY CANDIDATE AND MY PARTY ARE CLEAN, THE OTHER PARTY IS FULL OF IDIOTS. Ugh.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This did not make the difference. The silent majority was voting. Not because we know what everyone knows, you dont trust Hillary.

Silent minority (by nearly 3 million)

As stated it'd not a matter of whether or not it made an impact its about a foreign government trying to control our election results.

But I guess that's OK when your guy is the one that they're helping.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Silent minority (by nearly 3 million)

As stated it'd not a matter of whether or not it made an impact its about a foreign government trying to control our election results.

But I guess that's OK when your guy is the one that they're helping.

They couldn't have helped any candidate if they didn't have the ammunition. They steal her emails and release a bunch of stuff talking about boring press junkets and mundane garbage, nothing happens.

Putin is a douche bag. Russia is frightening. We can continue to focus on that if we want. The downside is both of our parties candidates this year were frightening. That gave Russia the ability to do what they did. That's more frightening to me.

Imagine an alternate universe where Hillary gets one of the debate questions exactly worded, holds a news conference before the debate firing everyone on her team involved with getting the question and saying the election is important, but if she has to win that way it isn't worth it.

How important is that Russian mail dump in that universe?

[JPhillips]

Equally.

The issue isn't whether or not it worked, it's that it was done. We can't let that go without any retaliation.

Now I think Trump knew about it, which is a much bigger problem, but that hasn't been proven.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by TroyF

They couldn't have helped any candidate if they didn't have the ammunition. They steal her emails and release a bunch of stuff talking about boring press junkets and mundane garbage, nothing happens.

Putin is a douche bag. Russia is frightening. We can continue to focus on that if we want. The downside is both of our parties candidates this year were frightening. That gave Russia the ability to do what they did. That's more frightening to me.

Imagine an alternate universe where Hillary gets one of the debate questions exactly worded, holds a news conference before the debate firing everyone on her team involved with getting the question and saying the election is important, but if she has to win that way it isn't worth it.

How important is that Russian mail dump in that universe?

I just don't see "pick better candidates" as a realistic solution. We had a candidate that Putin had a lot of interest in getting into office or he wouldn't have gone to the lengths to make it happen. Maybe someone with less baggage would have been more difficult to do this to, but I'm fairly certain every presidential candidate in our lifetime could be smeared by releasing emails like this.

The fact that they directly interfered with our election process is grounds for retaliation on some level. The fact that some are OK with it because it might be why their guy won is disturbing.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Imagine an alternate universe where Hillary gets one of the debate questions exactly worded, holds a news conference before the debate firing everyone on her team involved with getting the question and saying the election is important, but if she has to win that way it isn't worth it.

How important is that Russian mail dump in that universe?

Huh? This would be treated like it was a huge scandal, not like an honest politician trying to stay above the fray. It would've decimated her in the polls and the entire debate would've been about that. The e-mails still would've had relevance. It would be all about what did Hillary know and when.

[cuervo72]

Harm the losers, hold bargaining chip against the winners?

Log In - New York Times

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The fact that they directly interfered with our election process is grounds for retaliation on some level. The fact that some are OK with it because it might be why their guy won is disturbing.

Well, we have been interfering in their internal politics. Part of the fight over the Ukraine for the past decade+ has been because after Putin cracked down on internal media anti-Putin oligarchs were using Ukrainian soil for TV & radio stations that could broadcast into Moscow. I'm not "ok" with it, but I don't think it's anything we don't do or new in anything but scale.

Count me in with the side that dislikes foreign interference but thinks it's more disturbing that both the Democratic candidate and partisans seem to think we should ignore the contents of the emails because of where they came from.

Originally Posted by TroyF

The disturbing thing to me is how horrific and corrupt this entire system is. Of all the candidates out there, I can only think of one single guy who would have had little to no fear of leaks. And he wasn't one of the final candidates on the ballot.

Bernie? Ben Carson?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Count me in with the side that dislikes foreign interference but thinks it's more disturbing that both the Democratic candidate and partisans seem to think we should ignore the contents of the emails because of where they came from.
Bernie? Ben Carson?

Bernie. I would be surprised to find anything "dark" that he hadn't already said out loud to begin with. I doubt there would be speeches with him saying things like "I have to have one public voice and one for you guys" He doesn't have a foundation, I doubt there is foreign money involved in his campaign. Note: I'm not saying I supported him as a candidate, only that I doubt there would have been much for him to go on.