The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

Hold on to your seats. The USA Federal courts have just ruled to uphold the suspension of the Travel ban. Trump team reaction will be priceless!

 

[Tiassa]

Most of the hostility between the USA and Russia is paranoia based. The notion of nuclear war, empire building etc has run it's course years ago and now we are more involved in winding down from fear based relationships and slowly evolving to a more sustainable position.
The above doesn't down play the risks that Trump is forcing upon the world however his actions emphasis the absurdity of waving nukes around as some sort of display of sovereign macho.

A more useful response, of course, I will need to put some effort into, but it does seem worth mentioning that Mr. Trump's inauguration advanced the clock a half-hour.

 

[Schmelzer]

Every detail of your posted viewpoint on American politics is aligned - and even quoted from, linked to - the familiar propaganda efforts of their faction. The faction whose Congressional representation wrote that letter.
If you do not want to be on their side, that's an odd place to plant your flag.

First, I stopped to plant flags after childhood. Then, I do not choose sides in an argumentation based on whims. Even if a side which I despise appears to have the better arguments, I have no problem to concede this. Else, I would have remained a communist. There was nothing which made anticommunists personally attractive for me. But they had better arguments.

Your impression is simply wrong - for the simple reason that I don't read your beloved Breitbart site, that I have posted it one time here had the simple reason that it was linked from a site I read as the source, and I prefer to link the original.

well you have been posting your stuff for ages here at sciforums and achieved virtually nothing in doing so... little wonder you are bored. Maybe post something of actual value and see how you feel?

I'm bored answering joepistole. That's why I do it only seldom.

Putin probably went into the conversation expecting to deal with a deadly serious issue which Trumps ad hoc amateurism and plain incompetence just turned into a serious and sad joke.
So expecting a chest thumping, collar grabbing, head butting episode of international diplomacy Putin got what?
A joke....
Now Putin probably thinks well "How can I capitalize on Trumps incompetence?" and realizes that to do so publicly declares his global ambitions and intentions. But that won't do, he has to do it surreptitiously, clandestinely, under the table, so as not to upset the Russian public, but the table is no longer there, the other side, the Trumphonium incompetent side, has thus forced Putin's hand.. Do it man! Do it! but of course he can't.
The pressure to act only exist if there is an opposing pressure...and Trump by virtue of his ignorance offers no tangible opposing pressure....
A Homerism : Success by virtue of incompetance ~ Homer Simpson in the animated sit com "The Simpsons"

Nice try. But your fantasies about what Putin thinks seem to be a little off. The main idea that if Trump, out of incompetence, simply does nothing, then Putin has no reason to act too. He will continue what he is doing now, fighting terrorists in Syria.

I also wonder as test of word leadership what Putin's thoughts are on the serious humanitarian disaster unfoldng in Yemen, (Word has it up to 12 million people are currently starving to death.)
What is Putin going to do about it?

Sorry, but there is no aim to lead the world. What Putin wants is Russian sovereignty and a multipolar world. In such a multipolar world, there is no obligation to do something.

The disaster there is, of course, caused by Saudi Arabia fighting a war there, which it could not do without US support. The Houthis are not completely without support, and this support is expected to be done by Iran. But, as long as Saudi-Arabia supports terrorists in Syria, the closest thing to a symmetric answer is similar support for the Houthis. So I would not be surprised that some of the support for the Houthis is also Russian.

All one can do here is to hope that Trump will not support this war. This could stop the war. Unfortunately this does not seem not realistic, given that Trump wants conflict with Iran. So I have not much hope that there will be something positive in near future.

By the way:
Saudi Arabia denies Yemenis wheat cargo https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/saudi-arabia-denies-yemenis-wheat-cargo/
US Navy deploys to Yemeni coast to protect Saudi warships https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-navy-deploys-yemeni-coast-protect-saudi-warships/
So far about what US and Saudi Arabia are doing now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A more useful response, of course, I will need to put some effort into, but it does seem worth mentioning that Mr. Trump's inauguration advanced the clock a half-hour.

yes... another example of paranoia.... look it is true based on historical info that perhaps the winding of the clock forward is realistic. However the world is changing incredibly fast, so much so that "trend lines" and past data become more baggage than of real value.

Example:
At the moment we are enduring an Australia wide heat wave. The Temps are hotter and significantly more humid than we normally experience. It is the unusual "relative humidity" levels that are raising alarm bells.

Most people here are more focused on just getting through the sticky nights and wondering what is happening to the worlds climate than worrying too much about Putin's and Trump's global machinations.

Maybe Putin would care to send us a Firebombing air craft or 2 to support effort dealing with the catastrophic potential of firestorms in NSW or other regions?

 

[Quantum Quack]

He will continue what he is doing now, fighting terrorists in Syria.

well you know as long as it keeps him busy who cares what he does to the civilian population.
I gather you didn't see the recent video of an Assad interview on the subject.... ?

no I guess not....too much objectivity in one day makes it hard to sleep at night...

 

[Quantum Quack]

All one can do here is to hope that Trump will not support this war. This could stop the war. Unfortunately this does not seem not realistic, given that Trump wants conflict with Iran. So I have not much hope that there will be something positive in near future.

You still miss the point that Trump does not have control over the USA Military. He only appears to have control as being the POTUS.

If Trump had executive control the situation would be vastly different to what it is today...

So you have to ask... who does have effective control over the USA Military?
A question Putin would surely like to know the answer to....because given the gravity of the situation he would know fully well that Trump has no exec control and some other entity (group or individual) does...

 

[Quantum Quack]

A more useful response, of course, I will need to put some effort into, but it does seem worth mentioning that Mr. Trump's inauguration advanced the clock a half-hour.

By your own post you say that Trump could not even call a significant treaty by it's correct title ( Start up?)

Do you honestly feel that the USA military, including Nukes would be entirely at Trumps disposal given his obvious ignorance?
Do you think that the USA strategic think tanks haven't fully considered what having a rogue President means and devise and implement political and military strategies to deal with it?
The then President Obama wasn't joking when he stated:
"Trump is not fit for office" but had to contend with the serious possibility that a populist President that is unfit for office may actually gain office.

and,
Please explain why Obama as an ex-president and patriot is soooo relaxed about recent events including the winding forward of the doomsday clock? (he has kids too)

 

[iceaura]

Your impression is simply wrong - for the simple reason that I don't read your beloved Breitbart site, that I have posted it one time here had the simple reason that it was linked from a site I read as the source, and I prefer to link the original.

That's got nothing to do with my "impression". You've been played by expert propagandists, which is why you look like you're on the "side" they are pushing. Whether or not you think you got anything from the likes of Breitbart directly is beside the point - Breitbart is an easy, visible, and characteristic exemplar of their operations, which were successful in your case.

Then, I do not choose sides in an argumentation based on whims.

Propaganda is not argumentation. It's manipulation. You don't pick a side - you fall for it or you don't. When you lack information, you are more vulnerable to falling for it.

 

[Tiassa]

Do you honestly feel that the USA military, including Nukes would be entirely at Trumps disposal given his obvious ignorance?
Do you think that the USA strategic think tanks haven't fully considered what having a rogue President means and devise strategies to deal with it?

Our intelligence services have plans for pretty much everything except what we need to be doing. Okay, that's not entirely accurate, but only partly a joke.

One of the reasons it's easy to get the U.S. into the Middle East is that there is a bunch of oil there, so we have all sorts of plans on the shelf, just waiting for a reason.

Then again, one of the reasons it's hard to get the U.S. into Africa, even on behalf of Liberia, is that every time someone thinks to look to the shelf, there's nothing there―not even a shelf.

Okay, that isn't entirely accurate; I can't promise you there isn't a shelf.

I would have to look; the news buzz actually used the idea of dusting off the plans on the shelf except there were none for ... I think it was Africa. And, you know, there's not a lot of oil there.

Then again, Africa is only a counterpoint.

I'm pretty sure we've got plans on the shelf for overrunning the country, and that doesn't even require jokes about conservative wingnuts waxing Obamanoiac. So despite the idea that a president has that authority, if now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, as such, then good Americans will hitch up the system long enough to spare the world.

What the president needs the authority for is a Cold War extinction fantasy, and the question is what could compel Mr. Trump to initiate a Minuteman launch. If we pause to wonder at the plot for a story describing how Steve Bannon manipulated Donald Trump into glassing China and thereby destroying the reputation of the U.S. while invoking a global crisis in order that Vladimir Putin can emerge to save the world, well, okay, I would like to think government works well enough to avoid that outcome, but these are Republicans, and don't bother clicking the link since it's just another iteration of the old O'Rourke joke↗.

Here's an interesting problem: It is difficult to imagine the honorable men doing honorable work resulting in honorably fulfilling that terrible outcome; but I am also learning to mistrust my instinct toward that presupposition akin to the philosophical principle of charity. I keep thinking each new threshold is somehow inviolate, or at the very least more respected, durable, and better defended than the last; more fool me, apparently. At some point, that's a really scary thought.

Please explain why Obama as an ex-president and patriot is soooo relaxed about recent events including the winding forward of the doomsday clock? (he has kids too)

Part of it is custom; part of it is that he needs some time to unwind from his term in general; part of it is that he's not president, anymore, and it's really unhealthy to be so stressed out all the time.

But we must also celebrate with light hearts; President Trump can't have those.

Such as it is, I'm expecting Barack Obama to remain a powerful American leader for the next while. It's just ... you know, a different kind of power. Maybe we can transcend Spock, go straight to Jedi, and watch Barack use the Mind Trick starting sometime between Valentine's and April Fool's. Actually, he'll probably want to have it all wrapped up in time for the Tournament, next month.

Or, more directly, either the world is going to end or it's not, and as long as it doesn't he'll think of something eventually.

Edit: Revise and extend my remarks, 9 Feb 2017, 16.43 PT​

 

[iceaura]

All one can do here is to hope that Trump will not support this war. This could stop the war. Unfortunately this does not seem not realistic, given that Trump wants conflict with Iran.

Trump has always promoted belligerence and aggression toward Iran, as has the Republican Party and Congress he counts as allies. Clinton advocated peaceful treaty with Iran, and with Obama arranged one - and that was and is backed by the Democratic Party and all its Congressmen she would have counted as allies.

So no surprise that Trump is continuing in character, and the opportunity potentially available under Clinton is not available now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Our intelligence services have plans for pretty much everything except what we need to be doing. Okay, that's not entirely accurate, but only partly a joke.

One of the reasons it's easy to get the U.S. into the Middle East is that there is a bunch of oil there, so we have all sorts of plans on the shelf, just waiting for a reason.

Then again, one of the reasons it's hard to get the U.S. into Africa, even on behalf of Liberia, is that every time someone thinks to look to the shelf, there's nothing there―not even a shelf.

Okay, that isn't entirely accurate; I can't promise you there isn't a shelf.

I would have to look; the news buzz actually used the idea of dusting off the plans on the shelf except there were none for ... I think it was Africa. And, you know, there's not a lot of oil there.

Then again, Africa is only a counterpoint.

I'm pretty sure we've got plans on the shelf for overrunning the country, and that doesn't even require jokes about conservative wingnuts waxing Obamanoiac. So despite the idea that a president has that authority, if now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, as such, then good Americans will hitch up the system long enough to spare the world.

What the president needs the authority for is a Cold War extinction fantasy, and the question is what could compel Mr. Trump to initiate a Minuteman launch. If we pause to wonder at the plot for a story describing how Steve Bannon manipulated Donald Trump into glassing China and thereby destroying the reputation of the U.S. while invoking a global crisis in order that Vladimir Putin can emerge to save the world, well, okay, I would like to think government works well enough to avoid that outcome, but these are Republicans, and don't bother clicking the link since it's just another iteration of the old O'Rourke joke↗.

Here's an interesting problem: It is difficult to imagine the honorable men doing honorable work resulting in honorably fulfilling that terrible outcome; but I am also learning to mistrust my instinct toward that presupposition akin to the philosophical principle of charity. I keep thinking each new threshold is somehow inviolate, or at the very least more respected, durable, and better defended than the last; more fool me, apparently. At some point, that's a really scary thought.

He is a scenario for you to consider, remember the key word is "Unprecedented"

• Trump gets elected.
• Obama calls for an inquiry into Russian intervention in the election processes.
• In time a secret dossier is revealed.
• Yes it is found Russia did indeed interfere in many ways... ( undisclosed details)
• Ex MI6 agent C Steele goes into hiding and number of people either murdered or arrested in Russia for treason.

Scenario:
Obama is informed as President, that the Russians had totally corrupted the election process, so much so that any recount would be useless. Trumps election was false and provably so however the election of Hillary Clinton is not able to be determined either.
Result:
A new election is needed but Trump supporters (including vested interest Congressmen and women) would not believe this to be truth due to Trumps destruction of media (fake news) and use of alt-facts. Dis-creditation of the CIA for example...

So we have a situation where Trump has a support network that is making dire threats (revolution) if Trumps election does not occur. We have a situation where due to mass hysteria and intense "Migration" fear Trump has to be seen to be elected regardless of election integrity.

Unprecedented:
Remember in this scenario the election is entirely corrupted and needs to be called again but can't be due to the extreme propaganda being implemented by foreign and local agents.

So what happens?

Legally the election result is uhm...illegal....

 

[Tiassa]

So what happens?

A peaceful transition of power.

We are the American People; it would appear we're already putting up something of a fight.

Here is a ridiculously superficial proposition:

• From the outset, complain about Barack Obama to the point of paranoid conspiracism.

• Argue for years that the illegitimate, secret-agent President Obama will create a constitutional crisis and never leave power.

• Elect Donald Trump―i.e., per proposed corruption―thereby creating Constitutional crisis.

↳ I can't begin to explain all the racepolitik that goes here, but if the First Black President is followed by a failure of the peaceful transition of authority, who do we think Americans will blame?

(I would, however, suggest that everything about this nexus of circumstance is more than simply unprecedented; it's unique. Americans challenged the expected first female president with a boasting sexual assailant, followed the first black president with supremacist. Who knows, maybe when we get a female president, Republicans will respond by electing Gary Lee Ridgway, or something. Give Trump a term, and then Elizabeth Warren? Yeah, that will work; he'll only be seventy-five, or so. Hey, maybe when President Ridgway pardons himself, we will finally be able to close the outstanding files; we only closed a mere forty-nine, with acknowledgment of another twenty-two. He owes us an unknown number of names, though he can't remember them all; the real number ranges between the nineties and, oh, I don't know, a hundred fifty. Oh, right. I digress. This is kind of a unique fuckup on our part, and maybe that's the point. There are very few times in history we get to fuck up this badly, so ... right. My fellow Americans, or something like that.)​

The worst thing in the world is to actually allow Donald Trump to break the Republic. He can't have that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A peaceful transition of power.

to an illegally unconstitutionally elected President... at that...

and one that can not be publicly declared as such... until the people en-mass including Republicans assert their right and wish him to be removed. IMO

So my guess is that the ole political strategy of give "Trump enough rope and he will hang himself...." comes to into play... and once that becomes obvious, ( that he has indeed figuratively hung himself) the truth will be revealed to an astonished electorate.
And yes indeed "Trump was not fit for office" is realized as a truth and not a mere biased politically motivated observation and subsequent fact.
However due to the illegality of his election his control over critical global capacities ( military ) come to the fore...

Unprecedented and unique....and incredibly vexatious

What does happen if an election is deemed totally invalid?
so much so that neither candidate(s) can be given the top job?
Who becomes the "care taker" President ( if any?) whilst the mess is quietly cleaned up in the background?

any how that is but one scenario...

 

[Quantum Quack]

btw I don't think it is merely coincidence that Russia is celebrating it major 100th year anniversary this year. In that Putin would have loved to have had something to offer the people of Russia more than just lame , confused speeches about post revolution re-conciliation.

 

[Schmelzer]

Maybe Putin would care to send us a Firebombing air craft or 2 to support effort dealing with the catastrophic potential of firestorms in NSW or other regions?

If you are in need of them, I think this could be possible. I know that Russia builds such air craft, and sells it

I gather you didn't see the recent video of an Assad interview on the subject.... ?
no I guess not....too much objectivity in one day makes it hard to sleep at night...

I prefer the text version, http://www.presidentassad.net/index...dia-february-7-2017&catid=325:2017&Itemid=468 for reasons I have explained. You continue to discredit yourself with that funny "too much objectivity" nonsense?

Trump has always promoted belligerence and aggression toward Iran, as has the Republican Party and Congress he counts as allies. Clinton advocated peaceful treaty with Iran, and with Obama arranged one - and that was and is backed by the Democratic Party and all its Congressmen she would have counted as allies.
So no surprise that Trump is continuing in character, and the opportunity potentially available under Clinton is not available now.

I don't think it was available under Clinton. Sanctions or no sanctions against Iran is one question, and a not very important one. Iran does not have much trade with the US anyway, so sanctions do no harm. UN-based sanctions cannot be recovered.

Fighting or at least pressure against Saudi Arabia to stop the Yemen war is a very different thing, no chance with Clinton too.

That's got nothing to do with my "impression". You've been played by expert propagandists, ....

Yet another repetition of your "victim of propaganda" meme. Of course, everybody who does not follow you is a victim of propaganda. I'm used to this meme from my childhood, it was an unavoidable part of communist propaganda.
Learn to accept that if not only republicans and Trumpians (already quite different forces) but also libertarians, Russians, Asians, Arabs share some opinions, that it is not necessarily the whole world except you which is victim of the Breitbart propaganda site.

 

[iceaura]

I don't think it was available under Clinton. Sanctions or no sanctions against Iran is one question, and a not very important one. Iran does not have much trade with the US anyway, so sanctions do no harm.

Peaceful and more normalized relations with Iran was part of Clinton's platform, and part of her record (the treaty under Obama), and supported by her political base - why don't you think it would have been available?
The sanctions did considerable harm for a long time, regardless of Iran's trade volume with the US - perhaps they were probably going to fall apart politically anyway, in the aftermath of W&Cheney's Iraq invasion, but they were still in effect at the time of the treaty, and Iran at least felt they were worth getting rid of at some cost.

Yet another repetition of your "victim of propaganda" meme. Of course, everybody who does not follow you is a victim of propaganda.

Not everyone. You are, though.

Learn to accept that if not only republicans and Trumpians (already quite different forces) but also libertarians, Russians, Asians, Arabs share some opinions, that it is not necessarily the whole world except you which is victim of the Breitbart propaganda site.

Sure. The reality based stuff.

Just not those bizarre and fantasy-based ones that were promoted by the standard American fascist propaganda sources. Those have a couple of origins at most, and all of them are propaganda operations.

The reality-based stuff can come from anywhere. That Trump is a sober and sensible businessman, even a bit liberal, who will make good deals and govern competently - that has some grounding, however poorly informed, in reality. Many people can share that opinion without tapping the same source. Likewise your surprise that Assad would be featured in published interviews in the Western press, your presumption that the Western press is in the service of the White House. But the fantasy based or deception based stuff is unlikely to arise independently but identically from unrelated sources. So when you try to claim that Republicans and Trumpians are "quite different forces", for example, you reveal your source in one of the few and coordinated places where that nonsense was invented and launched. And that Clinton is some kind of bloodthirsty psychopath poised to start WWIII with Russia so that she can kill some more, supported by American campaign slander videos? That you got from the familiar Hillaryhate operations now decades old in the US - they have been in the business of slandering Clintons since 1992.

 

[Schmelzer]

Peaceful and more normalized relations with Iran was part of Clinton's platform, and part of her record (the treaty under Obama), and supported by her political base - why don't you think it would have been available?

I think this part would be available. I see, my formulation was not clear enough. Corrected version: "Sanctions or no sanctions against Iran is one question, and in this part I agree with you. But it is a not very important one."

The sanctions did considerable harm for a long time, regardless of Iran's trade volume with the US - perhaps they were probably going to fall apart politically anyway, in the aftermath of W&Cheney's Iraq invasion, but they were still in effect at the time of the treaty, and Iran at least felt they were worth getting rid of at some cost.

They were important, as long as they were UN sanctions. US only sanctions are much less harmful.

That Trump is a sober and sensible businessman, even a bit liberal, who will make good deals and govern competently - that has some grounding, however poorly informed, in reality. Many people can share that opinion without tapping the same source. Likewise your surprise that Assad would be featured in published interviews in the Western press, your presumption that the Western press is in the service of the White House.

Not of the White House, but of the deep state. That's a difference. Note also that I have not made any theories of who are the particular rulers of this deep state. The observable fact is that there is a large amount of well-coordinated lies in the Western media. I have, over a quite long time, considered an alternative market explanation, where as the press, as the politicians are interested in following public opinion, the politicians because of elections, the media because of competition for consumers, while the public opinion itself is guided by politicians and the press, so that once this starts, by accident, to go wrong, this will amplify until it goes insane. Such a hysteria could lead to a picture of all media lying consistently without any center ruling it. But this pattern of consistent lies emerged too often in too many different directions. And all of them useful for the power extension of the US empire. But not all of them compatible with accidental beginning. The Ukraine, where you have this pattern of consistent lies in favor of the Bandera fascists, and this combined with similarly consistent lies against any inner-EU right wing parties, all of them presented like fascists, this is not compatible with that mechanism of self-amplified hysteria. So, I have given up that hypothesis and believe now in some hidden power center.

So when you try to claim that Republicans and Trumpians are "quite different forces", for example, you reveal your source in one of the few and coordinated places where that nonsense was invented and launched.

You want to say that all those republicans which have openly opposed Trump and openly supported Clinton were inventions of Breitbart or so? Or that a similar strong support for the candidate of the other party is nothing special, but quite common in general in the US? Or something else?

And that Clinton is some kind of bloodthirsty psychopath poised to start WWIII with Russia so that she can kill some more, supported by American campaign slander videos? That you got from the familiar Hillaryhate operations now decades old in the US - they have been in the business of slandering Clintons since 1992.

You completely ignore here another point. Of course, whose who hate Hillary, for whatever reasons, would be stupid if they would not try to use her weak points. Once she looks like a maniac, they would be stupid not to do everything to use this impression. So, if they use that she looks like a maniac in their propaganda, it does not mean that she does not look like a maniac. Nobody has tried such a campaign against Ron Paul, because it would have been hopeless.

Don't forget also that I have used there three independent bits of information: 1.) Direct impression of her face in two videos 2.) Her choice of words, 3.) Her actual doings, starting two illegal wars. With the last being the most relevant one.

 

[spidergoat]

to an illegally unconstitutionally elected President... at that...

That's nonsense. There was no election fraud. The influence of Russian hacking can't be quantified, it was probably not significant enough to change the results.

 

[joepistole]

I think this part would be available. I see, my formulation was not clear enough. Corrected version: "Sanctions or no sanctions against Iran is one question, and in this part I agree with you. But it is a not very important one."

They were important, as long as they were UN sanctions. US only sanctions are much less harmful.

Not of the White House, but of the deep state. That's a difference. Note also that I have not made any theories of who are the particular rulers of this deep state. The observable fact is that there is a large amount of well-coordinated lies in the Western media. I have, over a quite long time, considered an alternative market explanation, where as the press, as the politicians are interested in following public opinion, the politicians because of elections, the media because of competition for consumers, while the public opinion itself is guided by politicians and the press, so that once this starts, by accident, to go wrong, this will amplify until it goes insane. Such a hysteria could lead to a picture of all media lying consistently without any center ruling it. But this pattern of consistent lies emerged too often in too many different directions. And all of them useful for the power extension of the US empire. But not all of them compatible with accidental beginning. The Ukraine, where you have this pattern of consistent lies in favor of the Bandera fascists, and this combined with similarly consistent lies against any inner-EU right wing parties, all of them presented like fascists, this is not compatible with that mechanism of self-amplified hysteria. So, I have given up that hypothesis and believe now in some hidden power center.

You want to say that all those republicans which have openly opposed Trump and openly supported Clinton were inventions of Breitbart or so? Or that a similar strong support for the candidate of the other party is nothing special, but quite common in general in the US? Or something else?

You completely ignore here another point. Of course, whose who hate Hillary, for whatever reasons, would be stupid if they would not try to use her weak points. Once she looks like a maniac, they would be stupid not to do everything to use this impression. So, if they use that she looks like a maniac in their propaganda, it does not mean that she does not look like a maniac. Nobody has tried such a campaign against Ron Paul, because it would have been hopeless.

Don't forget also that I have used there three independent bits of information: 1.) Direct impression of her face in two videos 2.) Her choice of words, 3.) Her actual doings, starting two illegal wars. With the last being the most relevant one.

What you have comrade is essentially nothing. What you have is a dump of Russian state propaganda. You don't have any credible data and whether you and your buddy Putinina like it or not, that's not gonna work outside your beloved Mother Russia for anyone with half a brain.

 

[joepistole]

That's nonsense. There was no election fraud. The influence of Russian hacking can't be quantified, it was probably not significant enough to change the results.

Well that is something we will never know. But we do know Russia intervened heavily in our elections with fake news and in cooperation with the right wing entertainment, e.g. Sean Hannity. We don't know what impact that had on voters. But dumping thousands of emails every day for last weeks of the election when vetting was impossible certainly didn't do Hillary's election campaign any good.