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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
"If he's preventing a corrupt politician from getting the presidency, he's doing the US and most likely the whole world a favour."
Clinton's 'corruption' is going to be far less damaging to the US and the rest of the world than Trump would be. It baffles me that you're so appalled by her fairly standard politician's behaviour that you'd accept a man so grossly incapable of doing the job. If he manages to do half the things he wants the damage will be shocking to behold. More likely he won't have enough support to do much and the USG will be completely impotent and become a world laughing stock.
"Heck, it's BETTER for him to influence the election than it would be to release outside of election time."
Absolutely not. As AC said above, releasing as early as possible give more people more time to properly process the info and avoid stupid over-reactions or missing stuff that's actually important. Advocating for less analysis goes completely against your claim that this info is important. The late release benefits Wikileaks only, not the public.
"I'd suggest that anyone upset about corruption being exposed might just be backing the wrong horse, and not liking it very much."
Nice strawman, but nobody has claimed they're upset about corruption being exposed. The criticism here is about when Wikileaks is choosing to release, and who actually benefits from there timetable.
It's always stunned me how police supporters use the 'few bad apples' line as a defence, seemingly completely ignorant of the whole expression and what it really means. People might have been ok with just a few bad apples, but instead they now see a spoiled barrel.
"Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing."
You're right, because he's come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he's never been in a position to do what she's done. Instead he's done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.
"Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still."
You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump's ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You're welcome to try.