President Donald Trump and his Administration

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Who's undermining the democratic process now?

Too funny.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

"The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source."

 

What does the word evidence mean?

 

I mean - you enter a train and there are many men with beards in this train - is it evident this has something to do with this special train? So you change trains and in the next train there are many blond women and almost no man with beards. So this gives even more evidence that the theory is right? It is something aligned to the train.

 

For evidence - first of all - you need an argument that disproves coincidence - or every coincidence is evidence.

 

No?

 

If american scientists say there must be a reason behind this this means there is a reason behind this?

 

 

 

So I'm a scientist too - as I showed evidence for the phenomenon that certain trains attract men with beards?

 

No?

 

"Believe they found evidence ..."

 

What's this? Finding as a matter of believe?

 

 

I believe I found my car keys.

 

How does this work? I found something and it's evident but I'm not shure?

 

 

???

 

In my opinion that's almost the same (as with guilt): this might be suspicious or strange. So many men with beards on this train - so many voters for Trump on voting machines. But for evidence isn't there needed something more than for suspicion?

 

 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Recounts do very little to change the number of votes, since there has been no fraud then there will be a marginal change of a few hundred- not enough to swing the electoral vote in those three states to Hillary Clinton.

The real issue for Trump is how quickly these recounts happen, I believe there is a deadline of the 18th of December for the recount to be complete. Otherwise the electoral votes will not be allocated. Which then means there is a chance it will come down to Congress to decide who wins.

Since the whole basis of these recounts is "suspicion of hacking" despite the three states, the President and others saying the voting was fine and there was NO evidence of voting fraud, then this could be the most under-handed attempt ever at giving Hillary Clinton another shot for the White House. And even if nothing is found? Well there's that deadline...

Still, I can't see one Republican voting for Hillary if Congress hast to decide who becomes President. Some of the Republican Congress may hate Trump's guts, but surely they will want their man, their SOB, in the White House and not their foe Hillary Clinton.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/

[APSMS 1,893]

I believe this was why they figured Hillary had to win it all or nothing. A Republican Congress means that the Republicans won the white house if it comes down to it.

Maybe the elites in Washington hate Trump, but heaven help them if they tried to elect someone else using legislative power (theirs by right, but political death should it come to that).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

[APSMS 1,893]

10 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

"Believe they found evidence ..."

 

What's this? Finding as a matter of believe?

That's a good question. Honestly it kinda sounds like grasping at straws, and at the same time it sounds like they're hedging their bets in case it turns out to be nothing.

I think, if it really had come down to it, that if Trump lost by the same margin that Hillary lost by (electoral college speaking, since as noted by Trump those are the rules, and that's the game we play by), I doubt there would have been much argument, plus everyone would've called Trump a sore loser and an anti-patriot for questioning our democracy.

But the democrats/liberals do the same thing, and it's hailed as being the champion of ensuring a fair electoral process. Sure, go ahead do a recount. They have the right. It's the hypocrisy I object to, not the actual action itself, which is a valid part of any election. This should be made clear.

 

As per @MilitantRadical's comic, the shoe's on the other foot now.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

3 hours ago, APSMS said:

Sure, go ahead do a recount. They have the right.

I think so. To recount votes in a state where the result was very close to ensure it - some kind of veryfication - isn't that bad in my opinion. But then even more: there is no necessarity to do some rhetorical tricks to bring the word 'manipulation' in. I was talking about earlier - this is wood to throw into the fire media produces: Scandal! Scandal! Scandal! 

As if they always try to find the worst word to name things. To keep people in a state of stress and alert. Wouldn't it be enough to call it a 'suspicion of irregularity' - has it to be always to be the most terrible - 'hacking, manipulation'.

Imho this is a dirty use of words. Just because there is no need to talk so. It's only to adrenalize people. 

Once again I could say media is for telling stories. But like action movies there are many different ways to tell a story. And shure, if you have a thin story you can put dramatic music on it and do much explosions and much blood and so on to make a thin story interesting.

And that's the same. Imo - the word 'manipulation' is used the same way in this article as blood in an action movie. Just to enhance a thin story.

There arise scandals and catastrophes where they aren't. They are done by words like action in movies is done by special effects.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

3 hours ago, APSMS said:

But the democrats/liberals do the same thing, and it's hailed as being the champion of ensuring a fair electoral process. Sure, go ahead do a recount. They have the right. It's the hypocrisy I object to, not the actual action itself, which is a valid part of any election. This should be made clear.

As per @MilitantRadical's comic, the shoe's on the other foot now.

The hypocrisy is seeking recounts for states which Trump won by small margins when Hillary won other states by even smaller margins such as Nevada, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The other hypocrisy is not having recount in places like California and New Mexico to make sure illegal immigrants weren't voting- but wait that's racist!

If Jill Stein actually believes in electoral integrity, and if she was actually an independent candidate, she would have made efforts to order recounts in those states too.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

On 27.11.2016 at 9:43 PM, APSMS said:

At least Trump lets us know he's a liar. Heck, half the reason he said he knows the system is rigged is because he takes advantage of it. Do I trust him implicitly? No, but if he makes everyone else in Washington and NY sweat, I figure that can't be a bad thing.

He played this 'media game' - he sharpened words, juggling with facts etc. to excite. I think he even likes to surf on this waves of public excitement as he has a big ego. Like some movie star he enjoys those crowds high agitaded like a sea in rough weather.

The problem I had - behind this 'show' it's so hard to judge his capabilities. It's like you have seen a commercial about a car. You don't know how it is to drive this car after seeing the commercial. All you can say: well it looks nice.

To know more about this car mostly you'll get some data sheet where you've get the key data - the horse power, the consumptions, the gadget and so on.

I still can't see the 'Trump Data sheet' - still it's speculation - this car could have ...

 

Me, I never could vote this way - the same I never would buy a car by just seeing the commercial. Maybe I could get interested, shure.

Now they argue as if everybody already knew that after he's elected he will change his web site and throw away all his 'firewood' that excited people.

Now he's becoming 'serious'.

As if to know that commercials aren't serious is already an argument to buy the car with the most absurd commercial - as this is a sign of self irony and therefore it is sincere.

 

Banking crisis was the same. People invested their money in things that didn't really exist. Making assets out from depts. A business idear.

For me Trump has something in common with mortgage-backed securities. A business idear that promisses an economical wonder. Turning depts into assets. Turning water into wine.

How many of these promisses I heared in my life?

When economic situation is unclear they try to buy gold, they give a damn on promises - because gold is the oposite of a business idear - it doesn't exist as something conceptional by certain circumstances but is a value by itself - you can bite on, you can touch.

Trump could even sell you bubbles for gold. Many great idears - like mine. Me, I had many great idears to be successful. BTW - what did become of them?

What was my problem? Why couldn't I realize them? Money?

Trust me - people with great business idears what they need first of all is money. Investment funds - they call this.

As far as I can see - american people were tired of social spending of money without profit which they named 'establishment' and they voted for the 'investment banking principle'. For a state that creates profit. They believe a state can stop spending and invest instead.

As if you return back into the supermarket with your fridge empty and you say: today I won't spend my money on those products - I will invest in those products.

The same principle that caused so much pain years before that casted heavy shadows on the whole presidency of Obama.

Millions of people loosing their jobs - now as if it was the work of a quick-change artist, five years later - it was all the immigrant workers.

Again: burning millions of jobs and then saying: let's close our borders to immigrant workers - chapeau, that's pretty clever to make someone else leaving holding the baby.

As if memory passes with pain. And if it doesn't hurt anymore there is no reason to remember what was the thinking few years ago. What they called 'establishment' by then now they voted for to fight corruption.

Isn't that the joke of the century? A former mortgage broker to fight morals in politics?

 

So me, I'll keep watching curiously what will pop out when you open this choccolate box.

 

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

23 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

"Believe they found evidence ..."
 

What's this? Finding as a matter of believe?

 

 

I believe I found my car keys.

 

How does this work? I found something and it's evident but I'm not shure?

 

Evidence, in criminology, has to be confirmed. "Believing" you have evidence is just part of a chain to having evidence.

So first you find a piece of what might be evidence, for example some blood at a crime scene, and the investigator says "I believe this could be evidence of a murder or of the murderer". Then you go and test the blood, you match it to a suspect, you interrogate, whatever, and it either confirms or invalidates the piece of evidence.

When a crime is being investigated a lot of things are "believed" to be evidence, until they are tested or analyzed. "Believe' is just another word for "possible" or "potential" evidence.

[rivit 3,404]

8 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Isn't that the joke of the century? A former mortgage broker to fight morals in politics?

Yep, make sure you read the fine print. We're heading back to the 80s - greed is good (all nod). At least we may see power suits again... 

[Fantozzi 4,069]

I swear, when I wrote the post above I didn't know he even wants to make a wall street broker secretary of economy.

 

On 29.11.2016 at 7:55 PM, MilitantRadical said:

"Believe' is just another word for "possible" or "potential" evidence.

Yes. I'm no native english speaker so I can't judge this very well. What I know is that in politics you have often verbs or formulas that try to eleminate the subject, the point of view.  You can say 'I suspect' - which makes clear this is something I did. 'Evidence' is some kind of quality of the object (precicesly: the relation between objects) As you don't say 'I am evident of' but the things itself they are evident, you say 'this is evident' - so the subject ("I") doesn't appear anymore in this sentence.

To talk about a 'possible evidence' is - imho - one of those blurring of language where something that is the job of the (logical) subject is ascribed to the object.

Things can be evident but they can't be 'possibly evident' it's just to put the assumptions (which is all the job of the subject - me I can assume, not the object I'm talking about) into the object. The same with 'believe'. You have to say 'I believe in evidence' - which shows 'believe' is something the subject does - it isn't a a quality of the object. You could say: this is believable. The same trick: what is the job of the (logical) subject you made a quality of the object. 

 

[EDIT]

Lately I read (in german):

"This danger shouldn't be underestimated"

To search for the subject that might 'estimate' one can recognize this isn't a statement but an order.

 

[EDIT2]

If you're interested:

http://qz.com/849453/1mdb-corruption-scandal-and-najib-razak-malaysians-worry-donald-trump-will-drop-uss-investigation-into-favorite-prime-minister/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-30/switzerland-asks-malaysia-explain-4-billion-misused-money-goldman-backed-slush-fund

http://www.finews.com/news/english-news/25127-1mdb-malaysia-switzerland

 

 

 

 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/26/here-is-donald-trumps-reaction-to-fidel-castros-death/?utm_term=.5c082b8035ad

I'm glad to see Donald Trump condemning the dictator that was Fidel Castro. Contrast that with Obama's extremely neutral, to the point of uncaring, response to Fidel Castro's death.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3977038/Twisted-worship-TYRANT-starkly-reveals-Left-s-warped-values-55-year-love-Castro.html

Shame on you Jeremy Corbyn for praising a dictatorship who stomped on everything which Western democracies stand for.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, Ln X said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/26/here-is-donald-trumps-reaction-to-fidel-castros-death/?utm_term=.5c082b8035ad

I'm glad to see Donald Trump condemning the dictator that was Fidel Castro. Contrast that with Obama's extremely neutral, to the point of uncaring, response to Fidel Castro's death.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3977038/Twisted-worship-TYRANT-starkly-reveals-Left-s-warped-values-55-year-love-Castro.html

Shame on you Jeremy Corbyn for praising a dictatorship who stomped on everything which Western democracies stand for.

Not as bad as my PM's response.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Great election post-mortem debate with the campaign staff of both candidates.

Seems to me that Hillary's staff actually believes their own spin and are unable to differentiate reality from their narrative.

 

[blade2k5 1,523]

On 11/29/2016 at 3:11 AM, Ln X said:

The hypocrisy is seeking recounts for states which Trump won by small margins when Hillary won other states by even smaller margins such as Nevada, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The other hypocrisy is not having recount in places like California and New Mexico to make sure illegal immigrants weren't voting- but wait that's racist!

If Jill Stein actually believes in electoral integrity, and if she was actually an independent candidate, she would have made efforts to order recounts in those states too.

Shillary did not win Wisconsin, Teflon Don did, hence the recount in Wisconsin which is basically a waste of money and time.  And if people call you racist for wanting a recunt in Cali or even bringing it up, they themselves are the true racists and only use minorities to further their own ends.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-announces-50-billion-deal-with-japanese-telecom-firm/article/2608991#.WEcrri3LfcU.twitter

Trump announces a 50 billion dollar deal with a Japanese telecommunications firm which will allegedly create 50000 US jobs. So Trump is definitely bring the CEO into his presidency and he hasn't even been inaugurated.

 

http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-calling-xi-jinping-126107

Meanwhile about Trump's Taiwan gaffe which cheesed off China... I'm getting the feeling that in the next couple of years the Cold War drums are going to be pounded yet again with the whole US vs China. It's great Trump wants to have friendly relations with Russia, it's not so good when the hostility swings to the next biggest Cold War bastion of Communism: China.

I got mixed feelings because China is clearly more aggressive what with the island building and aquatic territorial claims. But they have enough nukes to wipe out the US, yet they are in the middle of the largest credit bubble ever. China is vulnerable enough without any further military confrontation. Of course Russia and China are buddying up so will Putin stand for a more aggressive US stance against China?

All Russia has done this millennium in terms of aggressive foreign policy would be Chechnya (2000), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014) and of course Syria. Russia was playing defensive each time.

China? All the aggression and posturing was offensive and means of projecting influence.

Mixed feelings.

 

[APSMS 1,893]

39 minutes ago, Ln X said:

All Russia has done this millennium in terms of aggressive foreign policy would be Chechnya (2000), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014) and of course Syria. Russia was playing defensive each time.

Huh? How many offensive actions can you make and still be on the "defensive"? That's like arguing the US was on the defensive in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also in Libya. I mean, sure we're "responding" but not really. Being on the defensive is getting attacked at Pearl Harbor and responding in the Battle of Midway, not firebombing Tokyo. At least Japan was an equivalent power (at the time). How is 1) attacking a small semi-autonomous province, 2) invading a small sovereign nation and 3) annexing a major part of a former nuclear power defensive? Most countries would consider annexing a large portion of their country an act of war, regardless of the "approval" ratings of the people living there. The US did it to Hawaii in 1898, and I still think that was wrong, though obviously nothing is going to change about it. Then Russia continues to fund "rebels" in the Eastern part of the country.

I support better relations with Russia, but make no mistake about their aggression; it's real and present in modern Russian foreign policy. They've done a lot of bad things, and I'm not a war hawk, but we should be clear about what they've done in recent years to guide wariness in dealing with them.

America's done a lot of bad stuff, too, don't get me wrong. We were terrible to Iran, still support the oppressive government of Saudi Arabia, abandoned Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and blew that whole situation up. I'm glad we patched up relations with Vietnam, and am open to encouraging relations with Cuba (we did not hinder Castro's regime when we refused all forms of trade and diplomacy with his government). I also don't think we should apologize for using nuclear weapons, but there is a point that we should recognize both our evil and our opponents for what they are. No rose tinted glasses; we should not assume Russia is an ally any more than China, but we should understand what provokes them, as well as letting them know what provokes us.

The fact that the Soviet Union murdered 4 million Ukrainians in the 1932 forced famine is probably in the minds of many ethnic Ukrainians when they consider the current civil war and it's Russian-backed support.

Also, I seriously doubt that the move with Taiwan's president was a "gaffe". World leaders do not just pick up the phone and call each other, and I'm pretty sure the only truly direct line between World Leaders is/was the red phone (not a real object, but the idea/concept is).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

5 hours ago, Ln X said:

http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-calling-xi-jinping-126107

 

Meanwhile about Trump's Taiwan gaffe which cheesed off China... I'm getting the feeling that in the next couple of years the Cold War drums are going to be pounded yet again with the whole US vs China. It's great Trump wants to have friendly relations with Russia, it's not so good when the hostility swings to the next biggest Cold War bastion of Communism: China.

I got mixed feelings because China is clearly more aggressive what with the island building and aquatic territorial claims. But they have enough nukes to wipe out the US, yet they are in the middle of the largest credit bubble ever. China is vulnerable enough without any further military confrontation. Of course Russia and China are buddying up so will Putin stand for a more aggressive US stance against China?

All Russia has done this millennium in terms of aggressive foreign policy would be Chechnya (2000), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014) and of course Syria. Russia was playing defensive each time.

China? All the aggression and posturing was offensive and means of projecting influence.

Mixed feelings.

 

Nah, China is a close business partner of the US. They need each other. China has to act indignant about the Taiwan thing, but they aren't going to hold a grudge for long.

No one wants a nuclear standoff or nuclear war, no one, especially not a single nation (China in this case).

If Trump gives more military autonomy to South Korea and Japan the territorial waters issue will be in their hands, but I don't think it would escalate to war. China, Japan, and South Korea, although there are historical animosities, are too culturally intertwined and interdependent. It would hard to motivate the Chinese citizenry to support any kind of military action, and the last thing the Chinese government wants is a revolt.

Not a huge expert on Asian politics, I know less about it than European politics, but just my opinion.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/opinions/trump-reaction-to-critics-reich/index.html

 

The President-Elect has no decency and has already committed impeachable offenses and in a roundabout way declared himself unfit for Presidency.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

17 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/opinions/trump-reaction-to-critics-reich/index.html

The President Elect has no decency and has already committed impeachable offenses and in a roundabout way declared himself unfit for Presidency.

Fake News.

What impeachable offenses has he committed? He hasn't even been sworn in. He isn't yet bound to the oath.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

10 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Fake News.

What impeachable offenses has he committed? He hasn't even been sworn in. He isn't yet bound to the oath.

 

He has committed offenses before taking his oath that can retroactively get him impeached once he does, as seen in cases of impeached representatives and senators.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-president-be-impeached-for-crimes-committed-before-becoming-president

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

20 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

He has committed offenses before taking his oath that can retroactively get him impeached once he does, as seen in cases of impeached representatives and senators.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-president-be-impeached-for-crimes-committed-before-becoming-president

Totally skipped my question. What offenses has he committed?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

That CNN article you pointed to is obvious yellow journalism. They say Trump "falsely claimed" he saved 1,100 Carrier jobs, no evidence. Then they say the 4 billion air force one claim is false, again no evidence.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-07/trump-hits-emblem-of-presidential-power-with-air-force-one-tweet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4015320/Trump-RIGHT-Air-Force-One-Government-budget-documents-Boeing-program-slated-cost-4-billion.html

Can't believe Daily Mail of all places has a better sourced article than CNN which just makes claims.

Lol and the CNN article says Chuck Jones (Carrier Union Boss) received death threats according to "news organizations" and they link to their own article.

Then they go on to talk about McCarthyism. Talk about a dishonest hit piece that only doubles down on the typical CNN spin.

"Democracy depends on the freedom to criticize those in power without fear of retribution. Presidents and President-elects throughout history have refrained from publicly condemning individual citizens for criticizing them. That occurs in two-bit dictatorships intent on stamping out dissent."

It's a tweet for crying out loud. Get your heads out of your derrieres. A tweet isn't retribution. Welcome to the new media where the President has direct access to the people.

I mean come on. This is "Trump stole my shoelace" levels of pettiness. If you can't tell this article is utter trash then you need to get a new pair of glasses.

CNN, a news network with no ethical standards or decency, says Trump has no decency. Projection much? They repeat the lie that Russia is spreading false news and helping Trump then have the nerve to talk about McCarthyism. I'm sorry, but the only people practicing McCarthyite witch hunts are the mainstream media and Democrats. Everywhere you turn it's the Russians.

Oh and Robert Reich served in the Clinton administration. No bias there eh?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

24 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Totally skipped my question. What offenses has he committed?

Fraud, sexual assault, statutory rape, bribery, defamation, and inciting violence to name a few...

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

34 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Fraud, sexual assault, statutory rape, bribery, defamation, and inciting violence to name a few...

Wow Ocrams. From a guy who unironically compares Trump to Hitler I'm not surprised. You'll just believe anything negative about Trump won't you? The fact that you put statutory rape on that list shows me you don't care about context, you don't care about counter evidence or evidence for that matter, and you've abandoned all skepticism just to reinforce your hate of Trump. Enjoy your delusions. Keep reading CNN.

Sorry for being kurt, but I can't seem to find a nice way to put this. Lol, I've edited this so many times.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

43 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Fraud, sexual assault, statutory rape, bribery, defamation, and inciting violence to name a few...

And how am I supposed to refute your list if you don't get specific.

Fraud, what fraud? Where is the evidence?

Sexual assault, which ones? Got evidence?

Statutory rape, got proof?

Bribery, what bribery?

Defamation, who did he defame?

Inciting Violence, when?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

28 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Wow Ocrams. From a guy who unironically compares Trump to Hitler I'm not surprised. You'll just believe anything negative about Trump won't you? The fact that you put statutory rape on that list shows me you don't care about context, you don't care about counter evidence or evidence for that matter, and you've abandoned all skepticism just to reinforce your hate of Trump. Enjoy your delusions. Keep reading CNN.

Sorry for being kurt, but I can't seem to find a nice way to put this. Lol, I've edited this so many times.

 

 

 

 

One could argue that our prez-elect has nothing to do with the alt-Right saying "Hail Trump" with that old-fashioned salute; one could argue that all the women who accused him of sex crimes are lying and settled out of court because they had no case and not that Trump was powerful enough to bully them into silence; one could argue that Trump University is a legitimate place of higher learning; one could argue that the Trump foundation's scandals were all fabricated and they actually do only good; one could argue that half of his companies going bankrupt was a good thing; one could argue that Trump merely uses refuge in audacity and never committed defamation (which is not protected by the 1st amendment); one could argue that the uptick in violence and hate crimes are a seasonal fluctuation or a fluke (despite Trump being mentioned in most); one could argue all these things but sufficient incompetence, ignorance, and cover-ups are indistinguishable from malice, especially when the simplest explanation is malice. Trump is either evil or incompetent and neither quality should apply to POTUS.

  Edited December 9, 2016 by OcramsRzr  
Clark's Law and Occam's Razor applied to Hanlon's razor

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 minute ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue that our prez-elect has nothing to do with the alt-Right saying "Hail Trump" with the old-fashioned salute.

Yes I could argue that.

2 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue that all the women who accused him of sex crimes are lying and settled out of court because they had no case and not that Trump was powerful enough to bully them into silence.

Uhm, which sexual assault cases did Trump settle?

Trump being "powerful enough to bully them into silence" is a cop out. Come on.

3 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue that Trump University is a legitimate place of higher learning.

You'd have to prove that he intentionally defrauded people.

4 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue that the Trump foundation's scandals were all fabricated and they actually do only good.

You'd have to prove that Trump was directly involved.

5 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue that half of his companies going bankrupt was a good thing.

Half of his companies didn't go bankrupt. Fail. Again, evidence that you'll just make things up to fit your narrative.

6 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue that Trump merely uses refuge in audacity and never committed defamation (which is not protected by the 1st amendment).

Who did he defame?

7 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

One could argue all these things but sufficient incompetence, ignorance, and cover-ups are indistinguishable from malice, especially when the simplest explanation is malice.

Feelings over facts.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Name one time Trump has had to go to a Congressional Hearing because of his own misconduct.

Now, how many times has Hillary gone to Congressional Hearings for incompetence, security breaches, obfuscation... ?

Hillary and the Democrats go on and on about alleged Russian hacking of elections, fake news and apparent Russian propaganda. And yet Hillary and Podesta rigged the DNC presidential candidate process to push out Bernie Sanders. And of course fake news... Would lying through omission be fake news? The media has done a lot of that by misquoting Trump out of context and whitewashing issues related to Hillary.

USA MSM are a dying cornered animal who are biting anywhere they can. Donald Trump's victory is utter humiliation for USA MSM who tried so hard to bring him down, they really thought they had the power to swing the election to "their" candidate- Hillary Clinton. Just look at their actions and bias, ain't no conspiracy theory about it; the MSM were all for Hillary. Hollywood was for Hillary...

It is a mortal blow because it showed to many people just how biased MSM has become and how journalistic integrity and investigative journalism is non-existent. Of course alternative media is on the rise as are foreign (to the USA) news channels like RT and Al Jazeera. Lo and behold this fake news thing comes about and would you believe it- it targets alternative media and those foreign news channels. The moral outcry about fake news is utterly wanting.

The real outcry is that the kings of fake news, MSM, now have competition and in true Orwellian fashion they stigmatise the competition for propagating "fake news", MSM claim a moral high ground which seems correct when listening to their words but is utterly false when looking at their actions.. This kind of hypocrisy has a psychology based on self-loathing, narcissism, taking pleasure from lying and of course hard left-wing/right-wing slants.

Actions are more important than words. If more people stuck to this principle then the hysteria around Trump would have been diminished, Hillary Clinton would have been put under a more intense spotlight and the Presidential Election would have focused more on policies instead of constant verbal attacks- I must admit Trump scraped the bottom of the barrel and then some when it came to verbal attacks.