Russian agents hack both parties. Russian agents prefer Trump as president, as that would strengthen their world position. Russian agents realise only damaging Democrat emails, the subjects of which become major focal points for the election campaigns.
Sorry but that's not 'journalism', that's basically social engineering to attempt to swing more votes to your preferred candidate. Do you really think there was absolutely nothing newsworthy in the Republican info taken?
You'd expect this from an opposition party, but not another country. Your third paragraph is completely correct, because it turns out they didn't need to do any of those things to get the desired result.
"As I read it... it seemed like he was trying to convince himself more than trying to convince others."
As I read it he was just laying out a set of facts that most technologically apt people should be well aware of my now; that these companies collect data to use in ways that improve their service, because better service attracts and retains customers, which in turn makes them more money. Why he need to convince himself of something that's fairly well understood? Yes there are absolutely privacy trade-offs, and making these trade-offs more transparent and controllable is something a lot of these companies could improve on, which is a main point of the article.
"All this NEGATIVE on Trump already for things he may or may not do and hasn't even gotten into Office yet and won't until next year."
I honestly can't think of a more braindead criticism to make about predictions being made based on mountains of solid evidence right in front of us. You're basically praying that despite the well-documented history of Trump and his cronies' actions, there're all going to do something completely different this time.
Have you even considered the possibility that calling them out on potential bad behavior now might actually reduce the chances of them following through? Shine a critical light on people and they're naturally less inclined to do what they're being criticized for. Keep quiet, as you obviously think we should, and they'll feel there's a better chance of getting away with it.
Getting stuck into Trump now is a perfectly valid self-defense mechanism. Giving him the completely undeserved benefit of the doubt is to openly invite disaster.
"I'm honestly hoping I bite my tongue and he ends up being awesome."
If he'd picked people with the nation's interests at heart there might have been a sliver of hope of him being OK (not awesome, that's a wish too far). But the people he's surrounding himself with make a drained swamp look like a holiday resort. The damage they could potentially inflict is epic in scale and would take a long time to recover from.
You mean replace the elitist DC mafia with the elitist NY mafia? You think that's progress?
It's hilarious that middle class shmucks think their interests are going to be championed by a narcisistic billionaire with a grotesque history of failed businesses, ripped off customers and screwed employees.
"If the Hillary won by the electoral collage, they'd be clamoring about how great it was, that is was gilded in gold, should never be changed, and was the most democratic concept upon the face of the earth."
So you're claiming that if Clinton got less votes but still won, MSNBC would be praising the system that delivered such a ridiculous result? Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
I'm stunned how many commenters here are focusing on the 'unfair' bit, which Mike didn't even mention in the article, and completely ignoring the glaring fact that the president-elect is criticising people for protesting, something not only a major 1A-prtected act, but also something he encouraged against Obama. How can you not see that?
Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
""Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment"
Nobody said it was. Was is an attack on the 1st Amendment is taking less than 48 hours after being elected to criticise protesters and accuse them of being a media-controlled rent-a-mob instead of a group of people with genuine grievances. The unfair bit is just his usual petulant whining that makes him sound like a spoilt child (which I'm quite sure he was).
Are you new to this? It's almost like you've never seen organized protest before. Nothing you or anyone else has offered proves they're hired or 'professional'. It wouldn't be hard to prove if it were true, so go for it.
Have you considered they might really feel the way the say they do?
Ask Trump. Time after time he made claims that were plain lies, easily disproven in moments and not at all debatable. Clinton lies like any other politician, Trump lies like a 5yo.
"We want a politically incorrect candidate who will say it like it is, clean up the mess, and put working families and restore the freedoms in the Bill of Rights FIRST."
I'm not sure what campaign you've been watching, but the few policies Trump has actually been clear on will absolutely NOT help working families or restore the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, but instead do the exact opposite. Tax cuts for the rich and increases for everyone else? Curtailing free speech rights? Supporting police abuses? He will try to do these things.