Robert Mueller's Team Reportedly Interviewed Facebook Staff As Part of Russia Probe (thehill.com) 229
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has interviewed at least one Facebook employee tasked with helping the Trump campaign's digital operations during the 2016 campaign, Wired reported on Friday. The report, which cited a source familiar with the matter, does not say when the employee was questioned nor does it detail the focus of the interview. Mueller's team has been investigating for months any collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russia. During the election, Facebook deployed employees to embed with the Trump campaign to assist its digital operations. The company also worked with Hillary Clinton's campaign team but did not have employees embedded with them. The company has also been scrutinized by Congress for selling more than 3,000 ads to the Internet Research Agency, a Russian "troll farm" alleged to have carried out misinformation operations online during the campaign.
Hold on, let me get some popcorn (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What fight? Mueller has everything handled, the world has decided Trump's a moron from his own words alone. He's the least popular US President in recorded history. It's just time trickling down an hourglass at this point.
Re:Hold on, let me get some popcorn (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh dear, you actually believe that anything is going to happen to Trump don't you? Mueller is a special counsel, essentially a US Attorney. He can bring indictments against citizens for crimes but he cannot bring an indictment against an elected sitting US President or any Senate approved Cabinet appointees. That would be highly unconstitutional. All he can do is report what he thinks happened, and give that to the DoJ and Congress.
The IC law expired many years ago - there will be no repeat of the Ken Starr and Clinton investigations. Congress may decide to Impeach, but Mueller can't do anything except report it.
Also - there have been far less popular presidents in the past. I think you may be living in an echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He can bring indictments against citizens for crimes but he cannot bring an indictment against an elected sitting US President or any Senate approved Cabinet appointees.
Actually never been tried.
Anyone claiming that they know is full of shit. The experts in the field are still arguing about what and what not can be done here.
There is nothing in the constitution or any other law that says that the president is exempt from the law. The question is who is in a position to hold him accountable.
No president has ever pardoned himself and Nixon had the decency to not get a situation like this tried.
Re:Hold on, let me get some popcorn (Score:5, Informative)
He's the least popular US President in recorded history.
Trump current - 40% on RCP (or anywhere from 36% to 45% if you want to cherrypick polls to suit your agenda)
Truman (Feb 1952) - 22%
LBJ (Aug 1968) - 35%
Nixon (Aug 1974) - 24%
Ford (March 1975) - 37%
Carter (June 1979) - 28%
Reagan (Jan 1983) - 35%
HW Bush (July 1982) - 29%
Clinton (June 1993) - 37%
W Bush (Nov 2008) - 25%
Obama (Sept 2014) - 38%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Historical_comparison
In the history of presidential job approval polls, only FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK were decisively *more* popular than Trump throughout their presidency.
Re: Hold on, let me get some popcorn (Score:1)
This is fake news bullshit.
Read the link. Trumps best is 20 points lower than the next lowest presidental approval rating AT THEIR PEAKS.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Historical_comparison
In the history of presidential job approval polls, only FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK were decisively *more* popular than Trump throughout their presidency.
Presidents almost always become less popular over time.
Trump's the least popular US President in recorded history up to this point in his term.
Other Presidents had years of legacies and scandals with which to erode their legacies, not to mention congress controlled by hostile parties trying to undermine them.
Trump has been historically unpopular out of the gate, and become only more unpopular as he and his party attempts to govern.
Talking about cherry-picking (Score:2)
You match Trump's above-his-average current poll against the absolute lowest point of every other president - how is that supposed to be comparable?
Why not compare everyone's lowest, where his 33 puts him merely sixth from the bottom? Or their disapproval rating, where he's second-worst. Or if you actually wanted to genuinely compare overall popularity, maybe look at the averages over their entire terms, where in a field ranging from 45 (Truman and Carter) to 70 (Kennedy), Trump comes in at a decidedly unpo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering most presidents had their highest popularity ratings in the first year after they were elected, I'd say that was being generous. And I'm not sure if you've noticed yet, but Trump's biggest enemy is himself.
Re: (Score:2)
So he shouldn't try to run a second term. Being unpopular does not get you fired as President, being impeached and the prosecuted does but of course Clinton never won and Obama is already out, so no impeachment required for them, just an end to the corruption that keeps them from being prosecuted and the Bush's as well. Everything coming out now points to Democrat Party/Russia Oligarch collusion and it looks suspiciously like the Democrats under Clinton sold the Crimea to Russian Oligarchs. The uranium one
Goalpost moved (Score:1)
You're moving the goalposts.
GP claimed: "He's the least popular US President in recorded history."
You changed that to: "Trump is the least popular president at this point in their presidential term"
And several of those examples don't appear to be any too far into their terms.
Re: (Score:1)
For a comprehensive and well presented comparision of these figures, see Nate Silver's site trump-approval-ratings [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And now we're learning why.
Re: (Score:2)
"And the Illuminati! Everyone knows that the Reptilians are behind this! Subscribe to my YouTube channel for my 9-hour video to see the actual evidence."
Re: (Score:2)
Obama had to start after 3 months of the tea party claiming he was already responsible for our the 'great recession', which started before he was even elected and began to turn around within his first year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. During the Obama administration, the Dow went up by 149%. Trump has barely gotten a fraction of that growth.
This year, job growth is the worst since 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
> He's the least popular US President in recorded history.
It seems that you are seeing the popular analyses that show him the least popular _after his first 100 days_, which was a popular message in various media. America has had Presidents become far more loathed and disliked:at various points in their career. In living memory, Richard M. Nixon at the end of his presidency comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean those investigations that were concluded before she was even interviewed? Or the times she sat in Congressional hearings claiming she either couldn't remember or "what difference, at this point, does it make now?" - those investigations?
Re: (Score:1)
...Or the times she sat in Congressional hearings ... "what difference, at this point, does it make now?"
Since it made no difference....
Just ask Trey Gowdy where your 45 million in witch hunt money went
Re: (Score:1)
Many FBI agents are coordinating his take down.
So...nothing but speculation and bullshit?
Figures.
wait to the tides turn and its a republican heavy FBI that takes down the next democrat president.
It's a 4:1 REPUBLICAN FBI now. Where do you think the leak threat came from that caused Comey to give the Republicans their October Surprise?
Re: Hold on, let me get some prison for hillary (Score:5, Informative)
I do not watch or listen to those. Purely the facts from the investigation. If it walks and talks like a duck, it must be a duck. Many FBI agents are coordinating his take down. If that doesnt upset you, then wait to the tides turn and its a republican heavy FBI that takes down the next democrat president.
LOL, right.
- James Comey, a Republican, was head of the FBI until Donald Trump fired him.
- Christopher A. Wray, a Republican, was confirmed as Comey's replacement in August 2017.
- Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, a Republican, appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
- Robert Mueller, a Republican, is conducting the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
- Donald Trump, POTUS, a Republican, supposedly wanted to fire Mueller last June (shortly after firing Comey) but was talked out of it.
Whatever it is that's motivating the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate the Russian connection to the 2016 election, it isn't partisan politics.
Partisan nonsense vs real attack (Score:1)
Despite your attempt to make it partisan, it was a real attack on the USA. It started BEFORE Trump was picked for the nomination, so it was also an attack on the Republican party.
Do you think for a second Republicans want this whiny streak of loser in the Presidency? Their servers were attacked too, Putin's lot attacked them too. Trump attacks them too, undermines them too.
Or Republican supporters, do you imagine they want a Russian sell out? If you think that, perhaps you've forgotten Roy Moore and his "he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is ten thousand years into the reign of God Emperor Baron Trump. Humanity has spread out into the galaxy and an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity has dawned. The only issue is that contact has been lost by a few outlying colonies and there are rumours they have been attacked by a hostile extra galactic force.
Here's how Hillary can still win....
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This should be a non-partisan issue. It doesn't matter who side the Russian meddling was in support of, the fact that it happened and is now being properly investigated is the important thing.
Re: Hold on, let me get some popcorn (Score:1)
Russian meddling, are you completely mad? There was no Russian meddling, in fact I have it on the best authority and I mean the very best, none better believe me, that this whole Russian thing is totally made up and fake and that experts have said, people who know things, are saying THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RUSSIANS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mueller should know a lot about the Russians. After all, he's on their payroll.
On top of that, there are the revelations from the Strzok-Page emails (and the curiously-selective and conveniently-missing Strzok-Page emails surrounding certain critical dates) that compromises Mueller and the entire "Russian collusion" investigation, and the very legitimacy of the FBI and DoJ. This is big, bigger than Watergate in it's breadth, scope, and implications for the nation going forward.
They may have just went a bridge too far with this. People I talk to who normally never talk politics or abou
Re: (Score:1)
That's just misdirection from the people who are trying to help Donald Trump get away with Treason and keep Putin's Puppet in the White House.
None of what you have posted changes the fact that Donald Trump has been caught red handed committing treason and conspiring with Russia's criminal attacks on our election and democracy.
Look, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but whatever he allegedly did that was illegal, it wasn't treason -- for the simple reason that the US constitution is specific on what treason is: aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.
Re: (Score:1)
Mueller (Score:2, Insightful)
I have been thinking since this started that Mueller has the most phenomenal luck in catching this assignment. After running the FBI pretty much everything else he could do would be anticlimactic; a downhill slide to obscurity and retirement.
Instead, everyone in the entire world is breathlessly waiting for what he has got. What his real skills are. What effect he will have on the history of the civilized world.
Add to that there could not be a bigger, fatter, softer target that Donald J Trump and his hap
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that the next time I'm arrested, I pray that the cop sitting across the table questioning me is not Robert Mueller. I mean, Jesus Christ, the guy looks like an FBI hard case out of central casting. He gives me one of these looks and I'd give up my own mother.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con... [telegraph.co.uk]
I have a feeling that everyone from the Trump administration who's been questioned by Mueller so far looked exactly like
no luck involved (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mueller investigation IS the coverup.
1. Mueller was running the FBI and is a long-time good friend of Comey.
2. Mueller handed off the FBI to Comey and then was involved serving Hillary in the Uranium One deal during the Obama years.
3. Mueller, Comey, and even Obama are all tangled-up in Uranium One (which transferred piles of cash from Russia through the Clintion org to who-knows-whom) and all three were communicating with Hillary via her illegal private server (so ALL are involved in her felonies, whic
Re: (Score:2)
You tell 'em Comrade!
Re: (Score:2)
To get modded up, you should put your anti-Trump rant at the beginning of your post. The anti-Trump moderators don't read past the first sentence. The first sentence of your post is not obviously anti-Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
To get modded up, you should put your anti-Trump rant at the beginning of your post. The anti-Trump moderators don't read past the first sentence.
So it would seem. I really don't care about getting up-mods all that much. Less than I care about clicking "submit" and there are still spelling errors.
But given the nature of the pro-Trump responses in this thread already (obviously the source of my "Troll" rating) it is clear that they are so committed to "their side" that any discussion or rating of an objective statement seems wholly pointless. There is no objectivity in their world -- just their tribe and their agenda. So I leave it at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a nice project for someone doing a thesis would be to quantify the pro vs anti Trump posts and moderating. Are there more pro or anti? Do the biased posts and moderations follow a chronological pattern? Could "'bots" be involved? ...?
Re:Mueller (Score:5, Interesting)
There have already been four arrests and two convictions. That happened in record time for this kind of investigation. There will be a parade of people flipping on Trump before this is over, and it's nowhere near over.
Hell, Trump's own lawyer, Don McGahn has made the entire case for criminal obstruction just in the past few days. And Mueller is ignoring all the baiting and trolling by Trump and quietly and methodically building a case. For someone with nothing to hide, Trump is sure trying his best to hide, cover up his tracks and derail the investigation. It's no longer some case of "maybe he obstructed and maybe he didn't". There's a clear pattern of him trying to stop the investigation in which he is the primary target. The closer we get to the 2018 election, the more you'll see Republicans in congress start to wet themselves. You're already seeing all sorts of "secret society" conspiracy theories and calls for some made up "memo" to be released to try to derail the investigation, all of which never amount to anything. Remember, these are the same members of congress who couldn't even make a case against Hillary stick and they threw absolutely everything at her. We may still see some sitting members of Congress indicted for obstruction of justice along with Trump.
I'm going to look back and miss the excitement of 2018.
Re: (Score:1)
Four arrests and two convictions... for nothing to do with Trump.
In fact, Manafort and Gates were arrested for financial crimes they committed while under the employment of the Podesta Group.
Remember the Podestas? The amazing brothers John and Tony who were a Clinton Chief of Staff and Obama White House Counselor and Head of the DNC that clicked on a phishing link, and also ran a lobbying firm that was repeatedly hired by Russia and the Ukraine?
The fact is Mueller is a friend of Comey, who leaked classifie
Mueller is a criminal (Score:1)
Could you name the arrests involved with Russian collusion?
Oh, you can't? Did you know the FBI has a corrupt agent, responsible for one of those charges, that had to be tossed off the team? It looks like that agent is responsible for a REAL "obstruction of justice" charge himself, and any evidence he presented will not hold up and charges he brought will likely have to be dropped.
Did you know Muller covered for that agent instead of reporting his misconduct? That would be aiding a felony after the fact,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to look back and miss the excitement of 2018.
These are the halls of law in the US. These are the people that make the laws, that change the laws. They don't have to worry about breaking them. They can simply change them for their needs. All they need to do is win in the court of public opinion and as far as I can see that is nowhere near decided.
Something very similar to this played out in the 1930's somewhere in Europe. In the end, the authoritarians won. Don't think we are immune because people here know better, or that the right wing in our
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Ok then, here's a video of him flat out saying it. but ok, keep on living in your little bubble snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the Russiagate narrative. Which is the entire impetus for Muelle
Re: (Score:2)
You first, dipshit.
None of the indictments or investigation thus far has anything to do with supposed collusion between Trump and Russia. Like I said the first time. And for law, you mig
Re: (Score:2)
Except he didn't. Blow jobs were not included in the court's definition of "sexual relations". Right-wingers tend to get all poutraged over that but it doesn't change the fact that Clinton did not commit perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts matter. And you're as pathetic as the Dems who think I'm a major Trump supporter because I call bullshit on Russiagate.
Re: (Score:1)
If the memo was real, it would have been released already.
Re: (Score:2)
If Mueller was running a real investigation, the first thing he would have done is subpoena the DNC servers for a proper FBI investigation, as the Putin-hacked-DNC-servers idea is the Jenga block holding up the entire Russiagate narrative. Without that, you have no reason for a special prosecutor. Don't waste your time and mine by brining up his indictments which have nothing to do with Russiagate.
Re: (Score:2)
The President could declassify the "memo" right now. He does not have to wait for anything.
The "memo" is something Nunes cooked up to protect Trump. It doesn't have any of the underlying information, it is just a freshman term paper without citations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're supposed to be too focused on so-far imaginary Trump deals to pay attention to the one the Clinton's actually made.
The only thing Obama "gave" to Iran was their own money, held by a butthurt United States still pissy that Iranians dared to overthrow the U.S.-backed dictator that had run the country since the CIA-backed coup of their elected government in '53.
Nothing will come of it (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will come of it (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to lose to someone like Trump, don't run someone like Hillary.
(in south park terms: I see your turd sandwich, and raise you a giant douche)
The election wasn't ideological at all-- it's just they took one of the most hated figures in modern american political history -- and ran her against a jingoistic, populist mouth-breather.
Ignore the pollsters and the news, what did you really think would happen?? A large swath of the voting public voted against Hillary. the fact that they wound up voting for trump was happenstance.
I'm not sure we'll have a choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile the Republicans took both the House and Senate but lost the popular vote both times. And not by small mar
Re: (Score:2)
Look at proposition 65 in California to see what allowing people to directly vote on accomplishes. Warning labels on nearly everything about hazards that only exist within that state.
Actually those hazards exist everywhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit reasons that aren't even historically accurate, as the number of House seats was capped. If the number of citizens per district had stayed constant from the Constitution, California would have ~650 representatives today, whereas low population states like Alaska would have a dozen.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said it was?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that weren't the case, I don't expect that they would even manage to be as effective as the Tea Party managed to be, which isn't terribly much. They already have started c
Re: (Score:1)
>unless the electorate turns on the Republican party.
Not happening. And not because I'm asserting Trump didn't/won't do anything horrible (though he didn't), but because he - with the perpetually hysterical media's indispensable help - has immunized himself against almost any imaginable scandal. Trump's approval rating has been 40% +/- 5% for over 2 solid years despite constant pants-shitting about racism and treason and rape and literal-Hitlerness from every out of touch 'elite' in the media or show b
Re: (Score:1)
3,000,000 more votes = "huge loss".
Mercenaries. (Score:2)
They are only as loyal as the last payment you made.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks Slashdot (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Replace Trump with Obama... (Score:3)
Imagine what the Republicans would do if Muller was investigating president Obama under the same circumstances?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what the Republicans would do if Muller was investigating president Obama under the same circumstances?
How many impeachment votes can you have in one year?
Re: (Score:1)
2. The lack of interest in Hillary's collusion makes this probe seem disingenuous and partisan. Hillary definitely collected millions from Russia.
We do not have the reports lest (publicaly at least) but what is generally known is that the Russian operation agitprop was wholly anti-Hillary and pro-Trump. There is simply no path of logic that can conclude that the same Russians (Putin-connected) were out to help Hillary. Your assertion is nothing more than right-wing derp.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Eh? That's not quite right. She, among others, approved the Uranium One deal, there's plenty of strange money flowing into the Clinton Foundation, one of their own people complained about such money going to things like Chelsea's wedding, and from what little they've revealed of supposedly Russian operations, they were supporting things like Black Lives Matter.
It seems just a bit odd to categorize that as "pro-Trump" but then again we have so many articles were "sources" say any damn thing they want that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be? Do Teh Russians routinely donate to charities not named Clinton Foundation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:show us the beef (Score:5, Insightful)
the mainstream media and mainstream politicians are the ones who created the "collusion" narrative and very deliberately decided on the "collusion" phrasing instead of saying "conspiracy." conspiracy is obviously what they mean to say and should say, but ironically of course they have long since burned the "conspiracy" terminology, having trained the public to instead associate it with an untruth, a false narrative, with outlier schizophrenic lunatics being the only ones to think it true.
Re: Trump Won (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we may just see /. continue to report on this nonsense through the next seven years of President Trump's presidency. Then they'll probably continue to report on it through all eight years of President Ivanka's presidency, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Here in the US, a presidential term is four years.
Don't they teach US civics in your part of the world, comrade?
Re: Trump Won (Score:5, Interesting)
We're in a *lot* more trouble on the left with party-fracturing ideologies. There's a couple others that are at the top of the list that will have similar problems with getting people to vote instead of stay home (which is how Trump won; not from people switching sides, but so many many more Dems simply not voting over 2012/2008 then R's). Also consider that Trump absolutely 100% is enough of a megalomaniac nutjob to start a war with NK in his 3rd year because someone informs him that wartime presidents are a lock for re-election, which unfortunately is true. Dems would need to put up someone truly compelling, and the writing is already on the wall that they intend to do no such thing. So yeah, 7 more years of Trump. The best we can realistically hope for is taking back the house or senate to block the R's from their worst bs.
You are very confused (Score:1)
Melania, President Trump's wife, was born in eastern europe.
Ivanka, President Trump's eldest daughter, was born in the United States (in New York)
Trump is not a Clinton or an Obama, so nobody is talking about his wife following him into the presidency as people have spoken of Hillary and of Michellle.
People HAVE spoken about his daughter Ivanka (as some have spoken of Clinton's daughter Chelsea) running for the office someday.
As a deeply patriotic American, I find all this dynastic talk rather repellant. We
Re: (Score:1)
Ivanka, President Trump's eldest daughter, was born in the United States (in New York)
I know damn good and well who she is. I also remember the big hoopla when he and Ivana (her mother) came back from their trip to eastern europe and announced she was born overseas. Ergo Ivanka was not born on US soil and is not eligible to be president.
Re: (Score:2)
Being born on American soil is only one method of being a natural born citizen; anyone born to an American father is also a natural born Citizen and eligible for President. I believe the law now, and possibly when Ivanka was born, just says born to an 'American Citizen' but I know it was the 'father' thing that gave rise to birtherism back when Hilary and Obama were duking it out in the primaries.
When Obama was born the law specifically stated 'fathers' as granting natural citizenship to their children and
Re: You are very confused (Score:2)
Damn straight, my brother - fuck monarchy and fuck dynasties! We don't need or want that crap in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Know the name of the state your in and as a candidate have a real, positive story about that state.
Be able to give a long speech.
Voters remember who could give a good speech in their state, who had the energy to speak in their state and who said good things about their state.
Short negative statements to the ta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been a Newsweek subscriber for the vast majority of the years since the late-sixties, but even I though they were crazy for publishing that. Not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Clinton would not become anything if Trump was removed from office. Speaker Paul Ryan would become Vice President, per the U.S. Presidential line of secession. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Yet another brainwashed fool who doesn't understand how the US electoral college works despite it being explained everywhere over and over again for the past year.
Sad!
Re:Trump Won (Score:4, Insightful)
This. If only pure votes counted, Trump probably would have only concentrated on NY, Chicago, and LA, and most likely still would have won. Instead, he had a smart strategy of trying to win important states instead of using the "50 state strategy" Hillary used. Damn, it hurts for me to admit that.
If he won more votes he'd be the winner (Score:1, Interesting)
... i.e. to paraphrase, if he won more votes then he'd be the winner. You then hypothesize that he could have won more votes if he's done something differently. TV reaches all states, he won the votes he won and would ever have won, NY Chicago and LA saw him on TV and his physical GPS location does not affect the outcome.
But yes, you are accepting the problem with being a 'winner' when the majority of the people across the US voted against you. Power comes from being the democratically elected people's choi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The U.S. has "tradition" of democracy. It is legally a constitutional republic. Bush/Clinton legacies seem anti-republican (note the small "r") though...
2. You do not seem to understand the "electoral college." I'm assuming from your comment that you are intelligent enough to understand the college and its value. I believe there is a good Wikipedia entry you can read to learn out about the EC and its value. You should read it.
3. Ad hominens undermine your argument. Stick to the pertinent facts. Th
Re: (Score:2)
If Hillary was doing a "50 state" strategy she wouldn't have skipped campaigning in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. Whereas Hillary's popular vote "victory" (scare quotes because there is no such thing at presidential level) came almost entirely from NY and CA - two states that Trump didn't bother to campaign in because he knew he wouldn't win.
If there was a real popu
Re: (Score:2)
You are advertising your idiocy (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop embarrasing yourself.
A person can only win a contest by winning according to the rules of that contest. The American electoral system uses an electoral college to protect against the tyranny of a few highly populated cities running the nation. According to the rules, Trump won, therefore no matter what you say with your fevered imagination, HILLARY LOST.
You are like a fool who instsist that the team that lost the superbowl actually won because they had possession of the ball longer, scored points be da
YOU are advertising your idiocy, AC (Score:2)
No it fucking wasn't. The EC was set up to protect against "the mob" selecting the president of the United States - otherwise known as preventing the poor and working class from having a say in their own governance. Same reason senators were originally selected by state legislatures, and why voting was originally a right limited to property owners.
Because the sacrosan
You're projecting again (Score:2)
Of course they were elitist assholes. You don't get to be a slave owner without being an elitist asshole by definition, or limiting the right to vote to those who owned property. And even those that didn't own other peopl
Re: (Score:1)
There's been no evidence released yet to prove Russian influence of the election, but all thinking people know it to be true. The media wouldn't be talking about it so much unless it was true.
Re: (Score:2)
The media wouldn't be talking about it so much unless it was true.
Just like the WMD's in Iraq!
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the WMD's in Iraq!
When I try to explain that to people, they say, "No, that was different. Trump is much worse than Bush."
Trump is more annoying than Bush, but so far he hasn't started any wars, so he's better than Bush. That's a low bar but it was a low Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
The expert who could look all over Iraq found vacuum cleaners, license plates, a swimming pool.
The "experts" the US media and press trusted so much all lied to the US media.
Now the same failed media is pushing social media stories about other nations winning US elections.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the whole Russian collusion line I feel bad for you.
Interesting that you can't even call "bullshit" without bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)