If it was on YouTube, it would have been caught, just like they did with CNN. CNN still downplayed her message, in the "corrected" reporting. CNN had an agenda in the way they originally edited and reported the story. They only "fixed" it because they got caught, not because it was the honest thing to do.

@raphjd: There is certainly more evidence backing that up than 3 million illegal votes. Which is why liberals are terrified to allow the investigation.   :crazy2: We've litigated this before.  I will make a prediction . the commission will find no evidence of massive voter fraud, but will impose onerous new regulations, designed to suppress the vote, "to ensure the integrity of our elections in the future."  It will mention nothing about attempted cyber intrusion and recommend nothing to prevent it.

Believing that gays don't deserve equality, of any kind, is prejudice. It was funny that for 30'ish years, in the UK, I couldn't get married but muslims could have 5 wives, despite the law banning bigamy and polygamy.  Special rights for some, while denying equal rights to others.

@pppucci: The argument made by the former AG is ridiculous.  If it were true that a statement by the president of support for a person under investigation, than not only would Obama be guilty, but Trump would be guilty ten-fold.  How many times has he said that Michael Flynn was good guy who was treated unfairly?  How many times has he stated there was no collusion?  How many times has he called the Russia investigation a hoax?  If that is not "signalling" the Justice Department as to how he wants the investigation to turn out? We all know that if the FBI determined that Hillary should be indicted and Loretta Lynch refused to, that information would have been leaked, or Comey himself would have made a statement Second..

At first, I was pleasantly surprised when I got a breaking news alert on my phone that Trump had brought up the issue with Puitin.  I was at work and couldn't read more. In diplomacy, words are chosen very carefully and every word counts. Tillerson said. "The President brought up the concerns of the American people regarding Russian meddling in our electoral process.  Putin denied it." Then the Russian side claimed that Trump had accepted Putin's denial.  A White House "source" said that it wasn't true, but neither Tillerson nor Trump has made a follow-up statement.  Trump did not hold a news conference at the end of the summit.

Ivanka Trump is not my president!

I think the correlation is too broad.  There is no evidence that the guy attacked in Philadelphia because he would not "bow" to liberals. I am sure he either got in their fgace, or was attacked by thugs who were just looking for an excuse to commit violence. As for the post that I thought has misplaced bracket, your reply to my post appears in the same grey box as my quoted post.  Since it is not in a black background, it does not appear as a reply, but as part of the my quted post.  I know those words are not mine. It looks to me like you wrote your reply above the "" code.

I don't doubt there are some racist whites on there, but I doubt they have the numbers Gazi, Cynthia G and others have. I would get banned if I had a black stooge behind me being my total cuck and I called him the black version of "toilet complexioned cave beast", like Gazi does.

@mhorndisk: I just want to briefly say that I believe the issue of agriculture is something to be discussed regarding policies that affect politics, as our lawmakers work with such agencies as the USDA, especially since global warming is a big piece of it. I didn't necessarily bring that piece in originially, because I knew it would come about. If you like to eat chicken, like some of you have stated, so does Trump, and I don't hate either of you for it. I do believe that it is better for our bodies to stop shoveling meat into our mouths (unless it's cock of course) so much, it is better for the environment, and it is the leading cause of environmental destruction. I also have been critical of Leonardo DiCaprio and other Limousine Liberals on here. So here I will agree with the liberal side on this, and not so much with Trump. That's all I wanted to say. I can't even say something that shows I'm not necessarily your enemy without being ganged up on, so I am going to focus on other stuff because it really seems kinda pointless. Nobody ganged up on you dude.  If you had brought up the agriculture/global warming aspect no one would have protested its presence on this board.  The other jokes were about the subject in general and not made at your expense.  It didn't help that this was one of the umpteenth in a day, including some with very inflammatory titles.  I think you will find your posts better received if you keep them fewer and focused.  Otherwise, the human reaction is to tune out. And remember not everyone here, or maybe  even most people here will not agree with you.  Don't take it personally.  If you don't attack me personally, I won't attack you personally.

@Devken: And this is why you don't want conservative christians religious fundamentalists dictating laws, this is why the law should be based on secular and humanist principles. El Salvador has a problem. Absolutely.

Hooray Antifa!  ::)

@Frederick: @aadam101: Why hasn't Trump locked her up? I guess he was just saying all that stuff to get gullible people to vote for him.  It worked. He might still.  He's being a nice guy right now.  A moonbat would never let anybody off the hook for anything.  Trump is being an extremely good sport. As Mae West used to say, "Goodness had nothing to do with it." It just is not politically advantageous to do so right now.  I agree with you, Frederick that he may in the future, especially if he needs to shore up his base.  There is such deep-seated hatred of her in some groups that goes back 30 years.  Trump knows he can pump that well whenever he wants. P.S.  I am impressed with your cooler tone, and I thank you for that. But at the risk of asking too much, how hard would it be to call us liberals or leftists instead of "moonbats?"  We all know of your disdain.  You don't need to use a deprecative noun in every post.

@mhorndisk: Your assertion is meaningless. It's the report authors' assertion — not mine. To the extent that their assertion and report were both evidently meaningless to you, I have no doubt.

I think it was clear from its formation that this commission was going to validate Trump's allegation and use it to support voter suppression in the very states that gave Hillary her plurality.  Can you imagine a group chaired by Mike Pence doing anything else?  the greatest privilege of his life is serving the president.

@flozen: @Devken: @pppucci: "When you're Vice-President, you can do anything–Grab'em by the nuts!" … and bolts. pppucci and Devken, you share honors for funniest photo caption of the day.   :laugh:   And tip of the hat to sutieday for topic generation. Once I heard that Pence, in younger days, had experience pulling on big levers, but I credit that to the despicable liberal rumor mill, of course.   ::) I bet his lever is tiny. ;D

@raphjd: @sutieday: Less Twitter trolling and I will be happy. Less CNN. Hey guys, I was trying to be bipartisan. Let's not ruin the thread by rehashing issues that have already been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere.

Finally, Merkel got something right.

@raphjd: @pppucci: @raphjd: They have requested, names, addresses, partial SSN, party affiliation and voting history Unless the states are doing something illegal, then they have no idea who you voted for. Australia has mandatory voting and your voting record (not who you voted for) is shared within the government because you are denied benefits and can be sent to jail for not voting. I don't care if anyone knows I normally vote Democrat. Liberals love that CNN is threatening to dox a person over a meme, but hate the idea of illegal voters being faux doxed. I never meant to imply that voting history meant who you voted for.  It just means what elections you did cast votes.  How does that history relate to vote fraud beyond the information if the person in question ever voted.  Actually, I don't that voter suppression, even the suppression of illegal voting is the prime motivator in seeking this information.  They are looking to use it politically, and develop a huge database of party affiliation, who are the most motivated voters, who votes in primary elections, etc.  This will put them on firm footing going into 2020 to direct their campaigns ans spend their advertising dollars efficiently..  I have a strange feeling that they will not share the raw data with the Democrats.  It is just conjecture on my part, but even if it is partially true, it would mean the federal government is being used to further the cause of one political party. One of the cases of illegal voting in Texas came about through a random check of voting records.    An ex wife had her son vote as the dad, because she didn't want to waste his vote.   The son was 17yo.   Anyway, turns out the dad does vote.     So voter records caught an illegal vote. Same thing with the illegal woman who voted, also in Texas.  She got caught through the same random voter record check.   The same woman voted in several places.   Turns out the real woman was a victim of identity fraud and illegal women were using her name/identity. Let's flip this and say it was Obama or Hillary who wanted to do it.   I'm sure you'd support it and claim that everyone who disagreed was a conspiracy theorist. Also, like with the EPA, there are plenty of regulations and laws surrounding voter's rights and records, so nothing bad will happen.    :blind: Your examples are notable for the singular case in each.  The concept that these types of violations will add up to millions of votes has been challenges by almost every Secretary of State and those that study the problem.  And again, you are making that "show on the other foor" assumption.  I would object if Hillary, Obama, Bernie or the Pope asked for this information.  There already is far too much personal information stored centrally.  This will only confound the problem.It will also make Russian mischief easier.

If the US had the same flood of muslims into the country as Germany, I doubt they'd be on Merkel's side.