Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Trump is rumored to pick ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Tillerson has build up quite a few international connections over the years--most notably with Russia, who gave him the "Order of Friendship" medal in 2013 for his partnership with Russia's state owned oil company, a partnership that was subsequently dissolved due to the Crimean sanctions.

It's fascinating watching WAPO's comment section slowly but surely turn into Breitbart's. "The President-elect's committed treason!" "It's a conspiracy!" "Russia is our enemy!" It's like this bizarre rule that everyone now has to swap seats in the comments now that the letter next to the president's name is switching.

LightDragonman1 said:

So what say you guys on this news?

I thought Russia(ns) hacking the DNC was pretty common knowledge at this point. I still find it odd that that was the defense to the content of the emails, as if they are suddenly void because they were gained through realpolitik means. I also think the CIA's really stupid for not elaborating on how they know the RNC was also hacked--especially considering WAPO quoted one intelligence official as saying they weren't.

Verbose said:

I think that will always be more important than people in your own country trying to rig an election.

I disagree. Airing dirty laundry can be overcome through PR means, not having dirty laundry to begin with, or proper security measures. Ballot stuffing and other actual rigging cannot. The people who can do lasting damage to an election are not the ones sitting in some Russian apartment eating SVR rations, they're the ones taking the ballots out of the boxes to count them.

As Stalin famously said:
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this -- who will count the votes, and how."

FBI says RNC wasn't hacked, no evidence Russians thought Trump would win or tried to steer it in his favor, only wanted to disrupt faith in the election process. Also says CIA intelligence report being touted by media is not nearly as definitive as media is making it out to be.

Most federal politicians seem to agree either way that anyone in Russia's role in the leaks should be examined, which I don't really disagree with. We need to know why they could access the DNC's full server and how far they actually got through what information they took away from that data. Could have been passwords to all sorts of accounts, who knows what kind of info the Democrats' lack of technological awareness has ultimately put at risk? Disturbing, to say the least.

I don't think we should be thinking as Russia as enemies this isn't the cold war. But we really need to be serious about any possible outside government influencing the politics of the US. If it turns out to be nothing fine, but if the Russians really did influence the election we probably need to call it void and redo it.

Doesn't matter if that foreign government is a long time ally like the British or France, or a shaky ally like Russia or middle eastern countries, no one should be influencing the US election.

And I would be saying this no matter who won the election so don't assume that just because I'm critical of trump I think this is a serious matter. My number 1 pick, Bernie could have won and I'd still not approve of this.

I also don't think foreign companies or governments should be allowed to donate to a political party.

Apparently the election was not hacked and no one is claiming it was.

The New York Times and Washington Post articles which kicked off this narrative refer to the various hacks of the DNC-Podesta emails, the Clinton Foundation, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as foreign influence. Other media organizations are conflating these hacks with direct interference in the voting process, and that is not the case. Both articles, which came out on the same day (which makes me suspect a coordinated media effort) make it clear the charge is that Russia attempted to influence the election, not hack it.

Despite media framing, no one is actually accusing Russian FSS agents of hacking into voter machines, switching votes, wiping votes or otherwise manipulating votes on election day. While not dismissing any possible dangers or issues arising from the hacking of political parties and individuals, such hacking is an entirely distinct issue from direct interference in the voting process. And this is an old story. As far back as July, people were pointing the finger at Russian-aligned Guccifer 2.0 as the culprit for at least some of this hacking.

Now why would Russia prefer Trump over Clinton? Could it have something to do with Clinton's a) hawkish foreign policy as Secretary of State, which embraced and promoted the disastrous Arab Spring and destabilized the Arab world, b) her outspoken hostility towards Russia and Russian interests, c) her predilection for blaming Russia at the drop of a dime and d) her deep connections to the anti-Russian, globalist-aligned foreign policy establishment?

Or is it more likely that Trump somehow struck a secret deal with Putin in order to throw the election?

Pointing this out does not condone or dismiss the dangers of foreign governments trying to influence US elections, but it is important to recognize that a) such behavior is not the same as hacking or compromising the voting process and b) Russia could have done so not because it wanted or colluded with Trump, but because it distrusts Clinton and the foreign policy wing she affiliates with. In other words, Russia could have acted as it did due to how it perceives its own strategic interests and not because of some grand conspiracy between Putin and Trump. That doesn't make Putin a friend to the US, but it does make him a different kind of opponent.

That is the real framework within which any discussions about Russian interference should be taking place.

Basilius said:

…if the Russians really did influence the election we probably need to call it void and redo it.

I'd agree, if Russia actually rigged the election. Fact is, foreign powers have always done shit near elections to influence them. South Vietnam (with Nixon's approval) in 1968, Iran in 1980. There was even those murky dealings we had with the Israeli elections last year. Voters have known since the DNC leaks started Russia was likely responsible ( remember that was the go-to excuse for ignoring their contents) and they evidently didn't care that much.

Besides, few really hold the DNC or Podesta leaks as doing much to sway the election. I suspect Clinton's fall on 9/11, the email controversy, and the Democratic Party's utter incompetence-- all self inflicted things--played far, far larger roles than Wikileaks or /pol/ spinning stories ever could have.

I also don’t think foreign companies or governments should be allowed to donate to a political party.

Neither does the FEC:

Foreign nationals may not make contributions in connection with any election--Federal, State or local. This prohibition does not apply to foreign citizens who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (those who have "green cards").

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit.

I don't think we should call distribution of information as "an attempt to hijack the election", even if it was done with the intent of influencing the voters decisions. All information relevant to elections are done to influence voters. Commercials on tv and the Internet, speeches, debates, and press releases, these are all means of influencing voters using the dissemination of information.

It actually makes me really uncomfortable, because it sounds really close to the kind of propaganda people use to justify control over all information and some very draconian holds on freedom. Like, more snd more it seems that because the pre-designated winner of the election didn't win, thr powers that be would rather see all freedom of voting and information further restricted so that jext time, when they say someone will win the election, they will win, regardless of voters will.

Nate Silver thinks that Hillary would have won if the election was before the letter

John Mcain thinks we need to investigate Russian interference more

The CIA seems to think that the Russian influence on the US election is a serious matter and needs to be taken a lot more seriously.

"Former CIA operative is calling for another round of votes:"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4023284/Former-CIA-operative-calls-new-round-votes-intelligence-agencies-conclude-Russia-interfered-elections-goal-seeing-Donald-Trump-win.html

reposting link with different headline and quotes because some ppl obviously didn't click. The disagreement between some Republicans and Democrats on Russia's intentions in hacking the election rests partially on the lack of agreement between intelligence agencies and the FBI about the conclusiveness of the evidence, officials explained this weekend.

{ The New York Times reported this weekend that part of the reason for the change is that the CIA believes the Russians hacked not only Democratic organizations but Republican groups too, but that they only published documents from Democrats.

The FBI hasn't concluded that the RNC itself was directly breached, a law enforcement official said Sunday. FBI investigators did find that a breach of a third-party entity that held data belonging to the RNC. But the data appears to have been outdated and of little value to the hackers. The FBI also found that some conservative groups and pundits were hacked. The FBI also hasn't found conclusive evidence to show that it was done to help Trump.

"At this point, there appears to have been a combination of motivations," one US law enforcement official said. "They wanted to sow discord and undermine our systems. It's clear not even the Russians thought he would win."

Part of the issue is the nature of the CIA and FBI roles in the investigation. The CIA produces raw intelligence, the FBI moves more slowly to reach conclusions based on the intelligence and other investigative work. }

Trump: It would be a 'conspiracy theory' if we lost and played the Russia card with this little evidence. Why is the MSM pushing TWISTED FAKE NEWS narrative when FBI investigation and conclusions SIGNIFICANTLY differ?

I sincerely doubt Russians were standing at thr voting booths going "You no vote unless me, yuri, or other yuri, tell you to." And i sincerely doubt they were inside the voting booth servers when no mention of said severs ever being hacked. And i absolutely doubt we had russian muscle tallying up the votes in these places.

So where exsctly did they compromise the votes themselves so that we need to do the entire election over again? Sell me on this not being sour grapes.

Wisconsin recount is over, ends with Trump receiving a net gain of votes.

Pennsylvania recount appeal slapped down.

Just curious, am I the only one who thinks that people might be blaming Russia a bit too much nowadays? I mean I've noticed that a lot of people (mostly liberals) always seem to blame Russia for anything that goes wrong. The most prominent being this election. Honestly, I'd like to see America build relations with Russia, seeing how they're on an equal footing with us.

I think Hillary and friends like to blame Russia for everything because it wouldn't be PC to blame anyone else. That and maybe they've convinced themselves that the only way they could have lost to Trump is if there was some kind of shenanigans.

That said I've been trying to hear them out on the hacking subject because I don't exactly trust Putin myself but yeah, they're kinda starting to sound like /pol/ at this point. (Pretty soon they'll be saying Russia did 9/11).

Also I just knew the recounts would find more votes for Trump, lol. Literally fuck'n called it.

It is pretty hilarious the lengths they are going to.

Personally, I'll just leave this as my reason for giving Trump a chance over Clinton:

Russia is not on equal footing with the US. The US is so much more powerful than Russia. The US has a navy 3 times the size of both Russia's and China's navies combined. The US can destroy economies just by refusing to do business with other nations, which it has done to Russia and did hurt it's economy immensely. The US is the only Super power on the planet right now, the only thing that gives China and Russia as much leverage as they do is nuclear arsenals.

The reason why a lot of left-wing people are going after Russia so much is because they hacked their party, influenced an election with leaks, and gave support to their opponent. And according to some politicians, political analysts, and intelligence people, the Russian influence seems to have gave their opponent a big advantage that could have won him the election.

I'm willing to bet that if the reverse had happened you can bet the Republicans would be pulling the same crap.

The party who said Trump was "betraying the democratic process" and that his rigged election ravings were the "insane words of a desperate individual" and "will start ww3" would have immediately moved to impeach and imprison any GOP member of Congress who tried to launch an investigation into Russia's government because that's the only way Hillary Clinton could have won the election. You can bet on that~

Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking

>President-elect literally calls the CIA ridiculous on Twitter
>Media says he's a militant lying tyrant and pushes the story
>Turns out every single other intelligence agency says the CIA is wrong
>Media reinforces they can't be trusted
>Establishment reinforces they can't be trusted
>CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP

Basilius said:

Nate Silver thinks that Hillary would have won if the election was before the letter.

On a related point, Diane Hessan, a reporter for the Boston Globe, kept in contact with 250 undecided voters throughout the election. Here's what she said was the single biggest thing that turned people to Trump:

…when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

All hell broke loose.

I'm sure there's a great number of reasons people went with Trump or a third party instead of Trump, but it seems like most can be traced to Clinton herself. Her deplorables comment; her "we're gonna put a lot of coal miners out of business" comment; her using a private email server, then instead of laying everything out in the open way back in March 2015, letting it fester like a cancer right up to election day; her disregard for the rust belt; her lack of a tight, catchy, inspiring campaign slogan and philosophy to rally behind.

You can blame Comey, or racist rural voters, or Russia--but I think the vast majority of the blame has to fall on Clinton herself.

And according to some politicians, political analysts, and intelligence people, the Russian influence seems to have gave their opponent a big advantage that could have won him the election.

Who's seriously saying this (other than Reid and the Huffington Post)? Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta's emails. I don't recall a single earth shattering thing happening from either events that radically altered the course of the election. We found out the DNC was corrupt, sure, and that pissed off Bernie supporters and that Podesta's brother likes having dinner parties with crazy post-modern artists but you can't seriously suggest either event was this October surprise that suddenly changed everything.

I really think this is a massive mountain out of a molehill. Try to spin up Russia's involvement to delegitimize Trump's win, even though they really didn't do much to actually help him win.

I’m willing to bet that if the reverse had happened you can bet the Republicans would be pulling the same crap.

Sure, I'd be a little mad, but I'd be far angrier at the dirt that was revealed and that they nominated such a terrible candidate in what was possibly the best chance the GOP will have in decades to win. I'd also know Trump did far more than anything Russia could have to implode his campaign.

I agree that Clinton is why they lost. She was garbage and made the same mistake Romney did when he blamed a huge group of Americans just because they disagreed with her.

I'm just saying we need to really evaluate how much of an influence foreign powers had over the election. If it was a crippling amount of influence then something needs to be done. If it was only a minor influence then we should just keep an eye out for the same thing happening in the future.

Bernie or…whoever the third guy was, would both have been a better candidate than Clinton.

She was just pure garbage. I just want to know what other factors were really at play.

Can we find a stopping point with the "Other side would do x" arguments? They're really unproductive from BOTH sides and full of baseless speculation.

I really hope this leads up to a deep and thorough official inquiry into the CIA. From there, a purge through all their dirty laundry.

3+ million from Hilary and Stein supporters only to further assure Trump's victory.

And that Judge's responce to the LOLsuit was REKT/10

Trump picks Exxon chief executive as his Secretary of State

Trump Cancels press conference to address conflict-of-interest

Trump supporter didn't think he was serious about repealing ACA

The last Millennial hope has fallen.

Recount Spurs State Audit Into Detroit Vote Irregularities

"Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday."

The Detroit precincts are among those that couldn’t be counted during a statewide presidential recount that began last week and ended Friday following a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Democrat Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Detroit and Wayne County. But Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes or 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.

Overall, state records show 10.6 percent of the precincts in the 22 counties that began the retabulation process couldn’t be recounted because of state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals.

The problems were the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn’t recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent. And two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes.

“There’s always going to be small problems to some degree, but we didn’t expect the degree of problem we saw in Detroit. This isn’t normal,” said Krista Haroutunian, chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers.

State officials are planning to examine about 20 Detroit precincts where ballot boxes opened during the recount had fewer ballots than poll workers had recorded on Election Day.

“We’re assuming there were (human) errors, and we will have discussions with Detroit election officials and staff in addition to reviewing the ballots,” Thomas said.

The Detroit News last week was first to report that more than half of Detroit would be ineligible for the recount because of the irregularities. The results were based on county reports obtained by The News.

The new report, compiled by Wayne County elections officials, sheds light on the extent of the problems and shows a systematic tendency toward counting more votes than the previous Wayne County report, which didn’t specify if precincts had over-counted or under-counted ballots.

Republican state senators last week called for an investigation in Wayne County, including one precinct where a Detroit ballot box contained only 50 of the 306 ballots listed in a poll book, according to an observer for Trump.

City officials have told state officials that ballots in that precinct were never taken out of a locked bin below the voting machine tabulator on Election Day, said Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams.

“That’s what we’ve been told, and we’ll be wanting to verify it,” Woodhams said. “At any rate, this should not have happened.”

The state is not calling the audit an investigation, “but based on what we find, it could lead to more,” he said.

City Clerk Janice Winfrey and Elections Director Daniel Baxter did not return multiple messages.

IBM chief executive Ginni Rometty, who was appointed to Trump's policy forum focusing on economic growth, makes good on her appointment by unveiling plans to invest $1 billion in employee training and development and create 25,000 new American jobs by 2020 the day before Trump is set to meet with top industry executives to appeal for American manufacturing.

{ Among those expected to attend are Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Apple's Tim Cook, Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Larry Page of Alphabet (Google) and Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, according to US media. }

Remember how the DNC and Podesta hacks were highly sophisticated, state sponsored acts involving Russia's NSA? Turns out they were accomplished through regular old phishing emails that DNC staffers fell for.

@Colonel Sandor
I'm glad there'll be an audit. This is the kind of thing Stein should have been looking at, not "undervotes." Of course, that could have meant Clinton losing tens of thousands of rescanned votes.

In Washtenaw County, 23 of 150 precincts, about 15 percent, could not be recounted. Other counties with high percentages of unrecountable precincts include Branch (27 percent); Cass (24 percent); Wayne (24 percent) and Ionia (24 percent).

If anyone's curious, Wayne and Washtenaw overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, while Branch, Cass, and Ionia overwhelmingly voted for Trump--however, the total votes from those counties is very small. Total votes from those three combined could fit into the lead Clinton had over Trump in Washtenaw.

Hopefully, they'll look into the issues in the Trump counties as well, even though their impact is a lot less than Wayne and Washtenaw.

Double posting, because I have the link handy.

The Clinton campaign's arrogance/incompetence played a big role in losing the rust belt. Some choice excerpts include:

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return.

Operatives watched packets of real-time voter information piled up in bins at the coordinated campaign headquarters. The sheets were updated only when they got ripped, or soaked with coffee. Existing packets with notes from the volunteers, including highlighting how much Trump inclination there was among some of the white male union members the Clinton campaign was sure would be with her, were tossed in the garbage.

Waving off complaints during a visit to Michigan a few weeks out, Marshall explained to the room that Clinton was going to clobber Trump in the final debate and they were talking about moving money into Senate seats. And by the time they arrived in Las Vegas for that third debate, Clinton’s top aides were boasting about how they were about to expand the lead and pull marginal Senate candidates over the line to give her a governing majority.

Can we talk about NBC front paging an "anonymous US official's" account that Putin himself orchestrated the DNC hacks?? We're getting A LITTLE OUT OF CONTROL HERE like do you think Putin is just going to wake up and think that's hilar? It's cool just legitimately accusing the leader of Russia of international crimes whatevs

So do this concern you guys or not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/why-gop-electoral-college-members-can-vote-against-trump.html

http://time.com/4597387/faithless-electors-donald-trump/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/professor-20-gop-electors-may-vote-against-trump/

Do you guys think the electoral voters will ultimately flip?

20 flips would not be enough. You'd need almost 40, and that's assuming they all decide to go over to Clinton. And even in that unlikely scenario, Clinton has long conceded.

Since no other candidate has a feasible path to 270, and Republicans control Congress, Trump is safe.

Well the odds that the electors flip in such a way such that both Trump doesn't get the presidency and Hillary does are ASTRONOMICALLY low, so no I'm not really worried. Honestly just feels like all smoke and no flames.

Technically if the electorate votes her in, she can still assume the presidency even if she has conceded.

I think the chances of it happening are pretty much 0. but lot of people said that about Trump's chances and 2016 has been a fucking wild year so, never know what could happen. But no one should get their hope's up of avoiding a Trump presidency.

Kerry's not into the Russian conspiracy theory either.

{ “I’m not going to comment on anonymous reports from intelligence officials that are not identified that have quotes around the concept of intelligence officials,” Kerry said, putting “intelligence officials” in air quotes. }

LightDragonman1 said:

So do this concern you guys or not?

Not too worried. Only one Republican elector has said he'll be faithless. If the Colorado electors defect, they're votes will be considered a resignation and they will be replaced by the other electors. They also may be charged with perjury.

I think the only thing this'll do is lock in states ordering their electors to vote for the popular vote winner in that state and make it all the more impossible for national popular vote to get anywhere--especially if SCOTUS expands the Ray v Blair ruling to include faithless electors.

If 2016 decides to throw another curveball and they do flip, then that'll trigger a shitstorm bigger than 1876. Riots would be incredibly likely, which could escalate depending on the response. Congress may even refuse to certify the electoral college's results, per the Electoral Count Act of 1877, triggering a constitutional crisis.

But that won't happen because electors are loyal state party insiders and there's no way Dems are getting 37 to revolt. Or getting the House to pick Clinton or someone not on any state ballot.

>"They also may be charged with perjury."

Why? The article didn't explain,

Technically if the electorate votes her in, she can still assume the presidency even if she has conceded.

Of course, her concession doesn't exclude her from the Presidency on a technical level. I'm making the point that she has absolutely no infrastructure in place to facilitate an electoral college revolt, let alone a sudden transition to the Presidency. Both her actions and her words indicate that she would likely not participate in any attempt to hand her the election. I think she's well aware of how disastrous the fallout would be if such a thing were to happen.

On one hand this is a position she has been trying to get for a very very long time. She has done a great deal of bribing, ass kissing, and waiting just to get into a position where she could get the job. Its a job she has hunted over like a monster for a long time.

On the other like you said she knows what a large amount of the population, right-wing politicans and right-wing media would say and do if she actually got the position over Trump.

She is pretty much damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

But like I said, the chance of her actually winning at this point is on par with the sun not rising.

{ Both her actions and her words indicate that she would likely not participate in any attempt to hand her the election. }

uh she has resurfaced in public to say that Putin holds a personal grudge against her and that's why he hacked the election and made Trump win and it's not fair. She was hanging back to see if anything would come of it and now that it looks like it's escalating she jumps in with her two cents.

Kremlin also officially called for the US to provide proof or shut up, now their media is going off the chains too.

Clinton Wears Tinfoil Hat Too Close to Microwave

"“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Mrs. Clinton said.

It is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly addressed the impact of the hacks since the intelligence community concluded that they were specifically aimed at harming her campaign.

“Make no mistake, as the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperately tried to present to them during the last months of the campaign,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, which collectively poured roughly $1 billion into her effort. “This is not just an attack on me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to it. This is an attack against our country. We are well beyond normal political concerns here. This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.”"

Please note:

-Intelligence agencies have resisted Congressional request for the evidence of Putin's involvement, yet Clinton, who as of this moment has no position in the government and therefore should not have access to intelligence, claims to know Putin was directly involved. This means she is either lying, or has access to intelligence when she should not have such access.

-Wikileaks has stated a Democratic insider is their source, not the Russians. Given the lack of public evidence for either claim at the moment, each is equally believable.

-It is untrue that all intelligence agencies have definitively concluded that Russia either conducted the hacks or that they intended to target Clinton.

-Clinton uses words like "election process" to blur the lines between what actually happened (hacking of DNC figures) and election fraud, which did not happen.

It's also worth pointing out Clinton declined once again to state the Wikileaks' content was false, which included evidence of rigging the primaries, cheating during debates, collusion with media figures and organizations, and disparaging remarks about Catholics and other groups.

If clinton gets voted in via the electoral college there are going to be riots and there are going to be violent citizen responses to the rioters. It'd be way more damaging to the US for that to happen then any fsllout the Russian leaks have had on our country.

Most states actually have faithless elector laws that bind them to the people's vote.

which anyone for the EC should be against, right? What is even the point of the EC if they can't do what they are suppose to do. The entire purpose of the EC was so the electors can vote in who ever they want.

I don't think any elector has ever flipped while being pledged. So if they do, it would likely be a court battle that would have to go all the way to the supreme court.

{ The entire purpose of the EC was so the electors can vote in who ever they want. }

Not since like 1780, and I'm pretty positive you're not willing to argue for bringing back other late 1700s political policy without applying some modern context. So why would we remove modern context and go back to a late 1700s incarnation of the electoral college?

what is the purpose of the electoral college then.

To redistribute the value each state so it's more representative of all people, whether they're undereducated white males in Kansas or super cool hipsters in lofts in New York. Liberals are all about redistributing equality so the majority can't oppress the minority, until the minority turns on their agenda in which case the best solution is obviously dictatorship and media control. History continues to repeat itself.

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump

{ FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion reflects the fact that the leaders of the three agencies have always been in agreement on Russian intentions, officals said, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

The CIA and FBI declined to comment. }

Looks like the FBI hasn't backed anything, it's just more anonymous "US officials"! Our Democrat Secretary of State says he refuses to acknowledge the unsourced claims.

And who the fuck is WashPo to publish all of this as certain fact like a government agency mouthpiece? This is not reporting, this is so beyond ethical journalism standards it's not even funny anymore. These are the people Facebook is going to use to tell us what news is fake!

that didn't answer the question. I guess i'll ask this then
Why do we have electors?

"And who the fuck is WashPo to publish all of this as certain fact like a government agency mouthpiece? This is not reporting, this is so beyond ethical journalism standards it’s not even funny anymore. These are the people Facebook is going to use to tell us what news is fake!"

Well, it's not like the Washington Post held an illegal joint fundraiser with the DNC, and then superficially changed the wording on the tickets to obscure the fact…

It bears repeating:

The Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, and other media organizations pushing the "Russian hack" story were directly implicated in unethical and illegal behavior in these emails. Beyond being ideologically opposed to Trump and aligned with the Democratic Party, they have very strong motives to undermine the entire Wikileaks operation.

When your anchors, reporters, and senior management are engaging in behaviors which include asking a presidential candidate to approve of articles prior to publication or coordinating favorable TV coverage, you've squandered any presumption of impartiality or truthfulness. Therefore, there is no reason to believe stories relying on unidentified sources which just happen to support a narrative putting a nice bow ribbon on the rug being used to cover all the sordid details of #DNCLeaks and explaining away the failed candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

These organizations have an agenda, so don't assume they're being honest brokers. As the hacks they're trying to undermine proved, they're not.