President Obama Says Hillary Clinton Was Not 'Treated Fairly'

It would be fair if the RNC also released its campaign emails in a show of solidarity against Russian interference, but they won't because we all know the RNC emails are just as bad, if not worse, than the DNCs were.

>>92488
He's right, she got all the special treatment and protectionism the media had to offer. They treated her like a privileged child.

She also had this bumblefuck of a President out campaigning for her, which a lot of people think is ethically questionable.

>>92498
>It would be fair if the RNC also released its campaign emails in a show of solidarity against Russian interference
You mean the DNC staffer-leak interference?

>because we all know the RNC emails are just as bad, if not worse, than the DNCs were.
Baseless accusations are baseless.

Stop spreading fake news.

>>92488
Are you for real mr president?

I heard most of that speech, he went from 'well trump won according to our system, so I'll do what it takes to help him out' to constantly engaging in this nonsense about emails and fairness.

Listen, the American people heard stories about emails because of the media, but it came across in a way that was shrugged off by almost everyone. We all collectively said 'yea, she's scandalous and hiding things.' if you didn't know this, you probably shouldn't be voting. When hacking occured in the past, no one gives a shit. WikiLeaks has been posting US documents for years. But, because Clinton lost, there is sudden reason to start a virtual war with one of the world's largest powers?

Americans are being treated like uneducated scum by the government. As if we make choices solely based on sourceless information we hear on major news networks. Sure, some people do, but have faith in the people. As many 'hurr durr muricans are dum' responses I'll get, we all can have basic faith in others, and we do. That's why this country is the most powerful country in the world.

Now, I'm not saying that this is all untrue, but we have absolutely no factual proof that Russia did anything. On top of that, we here on 4chan know that hacking email isn't cyber warfare, it's some faggot guessing or brute forcing a password. They could have been using an IP from Russia by chance. We all know that the government's 'cyber warfare' division is a bunch of guys on Dell desktops reading reddit most of the time.

>>92504
The very least Obama could do is:
Prove that Russia is at fault.
Prove this had a notable difference in the outcome of the election.
Prove that taking action against Russia is justified.

I'm not a supporter of Russia, but I certainly can't afford another war, like most of us. Plus, Russia isn't like Iraq, Syria, or Sudan. These guys aren't mudhutters who just found an AK yesterday. They have a military comparable to ours, and weapon technology that can at least keep up with ours.

Less than a month until he leaves office, and he wants to prevoke war? I lost a lot of respect for the current administration yesterday.

>>92488
>I don't think she was treated fairly during the election, I think the coverage of her -- and the issues -- was troubling
Yeah it really was unfair how much favoritism the media showed her. Really shows how corrupt garbage news agencies like CNN and MSNBC are. Glad Obama can step back from his party and call out obvious collusion when anyone can see it.

>>92488
>sitting President takes time off to campaign for her
>>she was fighting against all odds guys

>>92501

>She also had this bumblefuck of a President out campaigning for her, which a lot of people think is ethically questionable.

Has it happened before in the USA history?

If so, what were the circumstances?

>>92525
>>92526

This is one thing I seriously don't get.

Almost every media, online and IRL, was really heavily promoting Clinton over Trump. I'm not talking about the usual left-leaning ones, but literally everyone. They kept saying how much she lead in polls, by how much percentage she would win, they kept dragging Trump through the worst mud there is, just kept digging in for more and more stuff from his past, while they conveniently ignored everything about her.

Now, I'll be honest, I am biased myself against anyone bearing the name Clinton. But I'm not pro-Trump either. Yet it's insane how much everyone was biased against him and how heavily they were promoting Clinton.

And now it looks like they're changing the narrative, trying to play revisionist, as if Hillary Clinton was the underdog, who got slandered by media, who didn't get enough support, when all I could see and hear online for the past few months was various celebrities, be they actors or singers or something else entirely, coming out to promote Hillary.

>>92505
>The very least Obama could do is:
>Prove that Russia is at fault.

Never going to happen, the CIA will claim the "evidence" needs to remain secret for the sake of national security...

>>92525
>>92501
Not just in the general election either, the media was completely biased in her favor during the primaries too. This is hilarious, Hillary had more bias in her favor than any presidential candidate in recent history and they somehow complain?

>>92538
Not recently at least. Dubya was cancer so he would have hurt McCain. Bill had his scandals so he stayed out of Gore's campaign. And HW lost his re-election campaign. The last time it would have made sense for a president to campaign for his successor would have been Reagan for HW. Not sure if he did or not, although then at least it was his own VP running so still slightly different than what happened here

>>92502
>Baseless accusations are baseless.
lol https://wikileaks.org/wiki/ACLU:_Revealing_RNC_document_leaked

>>92539
You do know there is going to be 3 different Senate committee investigations and a House intelligence committee investigation, right??

>>92540

Didn't she get handed questions for one of the debates as well?

>>92541
>
> Source documents
>
> Homeland Security and Emergency Management: 2008 Republican National Convention

>>92543
During the primaries yeah, at least once but I think it was actually more than once. The person who did that is now the head of the DNC.
We know this because of wikileaks, which is what's so funny about the DNC complaining about the Russians "rigging" the election. Even if the leaks came from the Russians, really the only thing they did was show us that the DNC rigged the election already. The Democrats are literally saying the election was rigged because somebody let everyone know that the Dems already rigged the election. Fucking hilarious lack of awareness

>>92542
> warren.commission.jpg

>>92545

I dislike how the people who voted for Clinton were all "Don't say it's rigged just because you lost" before the elections were even happening, but when their candidate lost, they're asking for recounts, they're saying it's rigged, that Russians hacked it. It's preposterous and utterly hypocritical.

this fucking warmonger should disappear as soon as possible

>>92551
The know the Day of the Rope is soon; they fear it in their boners.

>>92565

>in their boners

>>92565
> they fear it in their boners.
they feel it in their bones

>>92551
Hypocrisy is the liberal modus operandi. Atleast the Republican's worst traits are being greedy bible thumpers, watching liberals condemn racists and then #FuckWhitePeople in the same sentence is just embarrassing to watch.

>>92551
Blaming third parties and shit was the worst part.

>>92488
>Clinton and her campaign in recent days have also expressed disappointment with news outlets' focus on her private email server during the campaign

How about news outlets focusing on a leaked tape of Trump making some off color remarks a decade ago? Bet they're fine with that.

>>92569
>conservatives exist along a spectrum, but all liberals are extremists

>>92502

It's a baseless accusation but not necessarily even anti-republican, given that, after all's said and done, after we had the leak of the contents of 30K emails from the highest-ranking officials in a political party, the results were surprisingly tame.

Yeah, it looks like a few eggs were smashed, like it's unfortunate that within the party there was some institutional preference for one candidate over another (as though the republicans didn't all but disavow Trump). So we would wish things were done a little differently, but all in all, there are no bighueg conspiracies, coverups, and for the most part things appear to be run the way they seem from an outsider's perspective in the DNC.

If the RNC's leaks were comparably damning I'd find that pretty encouraging and say our parties are fundamentally pretty damn healthy.

>>92551
>they're asking for recounts
Because evidence existed of discrepancy and some thoroughly democratic counties in battleground states didn't get their votes counted due to dysfunctional polling machines.
That's a world of difference than Trump screaming and kicking "m-muh 3 million illegal votes!" when the media correctly reports that he lost the popular vote and won't enjoy the mandate HC does.
If you can't understand the difference, then you're an example of what's wrong with our country.

>they're saying it's rigged
who said it was rigged? Mostly Trump to my knowledge. And his ideas changed after he was elected, because he was elected.

>that Russians hacked it
Whatever the outcome, that is objectively established beyond reasonable doubt. If tomorrow it somehow benefits democrats, it still happened.

>>92488
>not treated fairly

No, what would be fair is an investigation and prosecution for her, Obummer, and all Democrats everywhere for treason and conspiracy against the United States. These people are so anti-American that they cut deals with drug cartels to smuggle muhammadans into this country, and even put arabic signs along the Mexican border to assist these terrorist. I was hoping that Trump would outlaw liberalism, but it looks he's going to sell out too.

There's no such thing as an honest, good politician in this country anymore.

It's happening guys. Assanges words were true. Trump won't be allowed into the white house.
Inb4 civil war

>>92605
I'm going to take a shit on your fucking ass and lick that shit off your fucking mom and then rape and kill your sister.

>>92605
Nah, Trump will have the White House, and then the cucks will have their reckoning.

>>92604
Great post anon!

>>92569
Watching conservatives condemn #FuckWhitePeople and then "nigger nigger dindu chimp" in the same sentence is just embarassing to watch

>>92610

The absurd polarized hypocrisy of both extremes has been embarrassing to watch. I think we need both political extremes to separate from their moderate counterparts and then maybe we can finally get some compromises in politics as opposed to 100% my-way-or-the-highway nonsense where everyone claims the opposition is literally satan trying to send you to hell.

>>92662
That would be great except for the fact that the closer a politician gets to the center, the more of a corporate shill s/he seems to be.

>>92587
>after we had the leak of the contents of 30K emails from the highest-ranking officials in a political party, the results were surprisingly tame.

The information from those emails as well as other places is enough to put any normal person behind bars for the rest of their life - possibly even enough for execution now that we know she was letting unauthorized people have access to SAP information.

The amount of delusion you have to stoop to, in order to believe that those emails were "tame" makes me incredulous. Had it been Trump, you'd be screaming bloody murder, and you damn well know it.

>>92664

Probably because corporations like the middle, it maximizes sales to both ends (politics are like a bell curve, moderates far outnumber the extremes on either side combined). As such it makes sense they would bankroll anyone who isn't an extremist idiot who would alienate over half the country (because lets face it, extremists also piss off people who they should nominally be allied to).

>>92488 https://youtu.be/MXkPHcP1jKo

>>92538
In my view, people (read as: the media) are genuinely scared of Trump becoming president. So, they tried their darndest to dig up enough dirt to stop him from winning. Interestingly, these scandals only seemed to propel his popularity. The media, not learning their lesson, continued to dig up more dirt on him.

>>92545
So just because a candidate cheated at the convention, you're OK with foreign powers influencing the election?

>>92705
>Conveniently ignores the the millions that were donated by foreign countries to the Clinton campaign and foundation

>>92708
False equivalency. Hacking is illegal, donating is not.

>>92710
>False equivalency.
But that's wrong you fucking retard.

>Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Federal election law forbids political candidates from knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving donations from foreign nationals or foreign entities under any circumstances. A candidate need not have direct knowledge that the source is foreign to be in violation of the law.

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml

>Hacking
Phishing*

>>92713

Hang on, didn't Hillary Clinton get tons of money from the Saudis?

>>92715
And Qatar, yes.

Obama can piss off.

>>92743

I didn't say a thing about what you're talking about.

I asked that guy if Clinton got donations from the Saudis, i.e. foreign nationals. And she did.

Why are you so upset by me asking this question that you felt the need to go on about Russia's interference here, when even the news posted in the OP have nothing to do with that?

In it, you have Obama complaining about how Clinton did not get treated fairly. And she didn't, but not in the way he's trying to revise the history of the past year or so. She was endorsed by so many, and not just the media, but public personalities, hell even Obama himself, while her opponent got smeared into the mud to hell and beyond. And she still lost.

>>92743
Yeah, keep those liberal tears coming.

>>92705
But literally the only influence they had was pointing out that the Democrats cheated

>>92743

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/18/politics/poll-russian-hacking/index.html

Yeah, only 55% of Americans see it as a slight problem, and the majority don't think that it had any impact at all. What we need to do is realize that Russia is not our enemy, and that we in fact share similar interests. We both want a solution to the Muhammadan problem, we both want to get rid of liberals, and we both want to destroy NATO and the globalist agenda. Putin is a friend to the American people, and sometimes you need a hand up when the Global Elite are kicking you down.

>>92748
Why do you keep pushing this "Putin is our friend" crap?

At best, he's self interested autocrat that doesn't give a shit about America so long as they aren't in his way; at worst, he's still fucking sore over the end of the Cold War and wants to get back at the West for it. Neither of those cases makes him a friend. Ally of convenience, maybe, but friend, never.

The IRS literally leaked a tax document to the NY Times and some higher up at NBC tried to sabotage Trump with that pussy grabber video

but a bloo bloo bloo hillary had negative media coverage too

Enough with the Russia hack bullshit. None of the 17 agencies have out forth any proof.

Anyone notice that the contents of any if the emails has been disputed?

DNC broke laws. Clinton broke laws. Clinton Foundation broke laws.

Where is the outrage and hammer of Justice on what we the people actually know?

>>92754
This. Russia are not the bad guys here, Clinton is.

>>92754
>>92755
Clinton being absolute shit doesn't make the Russians doing crap for shitty reasons any better.

>>92758

>that no reason to lambaste me for responding to you

But you're not responding to me at all.

You're just linking my post in your post, but avoid the issue at hand.

>especially if Hillary won

No, dude, it doesn't matter who wins. This kind of shit is pretty much illegal given the laws that one anon quoted there. There is no "Oh, that only counts if you get to be president, otherwise take all the money you want from foreigners for your campaign" clause to it, is there?

>why are you opposed to me mentioning Russian hacking

Because it doesn't matter.

Let's say that Russians did hack.

Did they somehow add more votes for Trump?

Or did they uncover corruption in one of the candidates?

>>92774
Dude, most of the people you're arguing with don't really like democracy to begin with and look at Putin or Pinochet with envy.

>>92488
dem liberal motherfuckers

>>92769
>>92774
How many more times does the Russian hacker theory need to be debunked and proved to be a baseless assertion with no evidence before you stop swinging at shadows?

It wasn't Russia. It wasn't Putin.
It was a DNC insider, most likely Seth Rich, who got pissed at the corruption of the DNC and provided that info.
The hack on Hillary's server literally was caused by Podesta getting his email phished like the fucking idiot he is.

You're an unwitting pawn in an attempt at a soft-coup by the current Democratic Administration and the CIA to create a false flag attack by Russian hackers in order to get their more "establishment" friendly candidate legally appointed as President-elect by applying pressure to get Electors to vote against Trump. And people have bought it hook line and sinker

You notice how all of those stories about Trump allegedly molesting all those women and raping that 13 year old have all but completely vanished from the news sphere?
Watch as the same thing happens with this bogus "Russian hacker" narrative.

When it's no longer politically useful, it'll get dropped like a hot potato by everyone save for uninformed leftists to reference whenever they need to make a snide, cutting but uninformed rebuttal to some equally as uninformed conservative they're arguing with on Facebook.

>>92777
>Our elections can't be allowed to become so partisan that the country tears itself apart.
Then the left needs to stop attempting to stage an Electoral coup with an evidently dubious "classified" story about Russian hackers compromising the election.

The left needs to stop being fucking hypocrites and accept the outcome of the election as legitimate, like they mocked Trump incessantly for saying he "might not do".
The left needs to admit they lost because of their own issues, namely their own inherent elitism & classicism, their addiction to identity politics.
They need to stop crying foul about electoral rules they agreed to abide by beforehand only to cry about how democracy is being trampled on because we're a republic and not a direct democracy, like we have been the country's inception.

Most of all, the left needs to come to the humbling realization that while they certainly don't lose the right to have a voice, they need to stop pretending they're in any position to act outraged and make ridiculous demands after losing.

>>92838
The establishment is pissed at Trump because he wants to drain the swamp and nuke China and all those liberal cities. Of course they're trying to tar him, but he's doing what is needed to save America.

>>92841
The left needs some Hotel Rwanda treatment, if you get what I mean.

>>92842
>bait.jpg

>>92842
>Hotel Rwanda
Well, I mean, we have guns in this country so we won't need machetes, but at the same time, why would we really want to fuck the country over so hard that even Isis would be able to take us over? You may not like it, but those liberals make up half the country. Also, how would you get the military to fire nukes at American cities? Even if Trump fired every single general and replaced them with political appointees, I doubt the current military culture would stand for it.

>>92838
>>92841
Wouldn't a bipartisan investigation assuage a lot of the hand wringing going on and give Trump more breathing room when it absolved him? Speaking out against or impeding it makes him look suspicious as fuck to a lot of people. Just get it over with. I doubt Trump would have had any knowledge of the hacks if they happened, so he'll be in the clear, and the more he's fighting it, the more hits his legitimacy takes (more so then if he just condemned it and the investigation came back and confirmed the Ruskies hacked the DNC to hurt Clinton).

>>92842
>he still believes Trump wants to drain the swamp
kek

>>92858
Let him dream anon, let him dream his sweet, sweet dreams into the night.

>>92851
>Wouldn't a bipartisan investigation assuage a lot of the hand wringing going on and give Trump more breathing room when it absolved him?
No, because there's

N O E V I D E N C E

and it'd essentially be a witch hunt by people who have already decided he's guilty, because it's the "only conceivable way as to how Hillary lost."

>Speaking out against or impeding it makes him look suspicious as fuck to a lot of people.
Not an amount of people that truly matters. Most people don't actually buy this shit, save again, for people looking for "comfortable" explanations as to why Hillary lost.

>Just get it over with.
Just point to actual evidence.

>I doubt Trump would have had any knowledge of the hacks if they happened, so he'll be in the clear, and the more he's fighting it, the more hits his legitimacy takes (more so then if he just condemned it and the investigation came back and confirmed the Ruskies hacked the DNC to hurt Clinton).
/His/ legitimacy??

Legitimacy is a word the "current" left may only get to remember fondly, because it's evident that this is the DNC's attempt at a Reichstag fire, and tomorrow when the EC votes in Trump, their one chance will be gone. The discomfort these people have now at the election results are going to increase exponentially, starting tomorrow and continuing over the next 4-8 years.

Again, not in any sort of position to make demands or accusations.

>>92863

An investigation implies finding evidence, if any. Congress had fucking 11 investigations of Hillary Clinton on Benghazi and her emails, surely they could have a single comprehensive investigation of this hacking shit. Plus the Republicans would control any investigation, surely they could just have one and shut down any continued attempts as partisan bullshit (at which point it would be).

Also the irony of it all is getting to me, with the parties literally reversing their positions on whether or not it's worth investigating things. Spending millions on pointless investigations was a Republican thing, now it's Democrats. Claiming the investigation was baseless with no evidence was Democrat thing, now it's Republican. At some point we nee to level this shit out instead of being a comedy see-saw.

>>92864
Inconsistency and hypocrisy is what is killing politics in this country.

"It's OK when my side does it" needs to die.

>>92865
So basically humans just need to quit being humans is what you're saying

>>92488
>Hillary Clinton Was Not 'Treated Fairly' During Presidential Election

ARE YOU FUCKING WITH ME? The media refused to say anything negative about Hillary, they fucking worshiped her, they engaged none stop in identity politics for her, they shamed anyone who didn't support her, they gave Hillary veto powers over their articles, they let Hillary edit their articles, they gave debate questions to her, and they even let her side come up with debate questions to nail Trump.

The Democrats are dead to me. Someone better start up a new 3rd party replacement for them come 2018.

>>92498

You seriously believe the RNC rigged their primary in favor of Trump? The same RNC that cut ties with Trump.

>>92605
>Inb4 civil war

would be a pretty boring civil war, majority of lefties don't own guns and the military is generally populated with conservatives

>>92498
The average person didn't care about Emails. Hell, most people I know don't even KNOW what was in the emails.

>>92878
>ARE YOU FUCKING WITH ME? The media refused to say anything negative about Hillary, they fucking worshiped her, they engaged none stop in identity politics for her, they shamed anyone who didn't support her, they gave Hillary veto powers over their articles, they let Hillary edit their articles, they gave debate questions to her, and they even let her side come up with debate questions to nail Trump.

Can you source me on any of this from any major news outlet?? The media broadcaste all of Trump's rallies and every other story was about what little they could dredge up from 30K private coversations of the DNC leaked for Trump.

The fact that they enabled any sort of narrative that equivocated her ultra-sanitary career to Trump's endless list of flaws should leave coconservative s praising the MSM. Of course they won't simply because now that the election is over, only Trump's policies are going to be paid any attention (as it should be), which threatens to be absolute anathema to many of his supporters because his administration looks to be a trainwreck waiting to happen. He's not in office yet and we've already too many scandals of conflicting interests to detail in a single post.

Self affirmation theory all up in this thread

Yall would argue about anything.

>>92952
The source is any media outlet during the election. Use your eyeballs.

>>92864
>At some point we nee to level this shit out instead of being a comedy see-saw.
>gibbe muh investigation tho hue hue

>>92952
>Can you source me on any of this from any major news outlet??
If you're honestly asking that, you're a dullard. Anyone with a pulse saw that shit. It's all over the place, suddenly acting confused like it didn't happen and demanding "proofs" won't change that.

>The fact that they enabled any sort of narrative that equivocated her ultra-sanitary career to Trump's endless list of flaws should leave coconservatives praising the MSM.
>her ultra-sanitary career
Dullard confirmed.

>He's not in office yet and we've already too many scandals of conflicting interests to detail in a single post.
Willing to bet 90% of them are hyperbolic propaganda points drawn up by pearl clutching liberals like yourself.

>>92504
hurr durr 'mericans r dum

>>92542
Those are never going to go anywhere because then we'd have to deal with the gazillion cases where the US interfered in foreign elections in ways that actually mattered, considering how many governments we've overthrown.

Might as well convene a panel to discuss how outraged we need to pretend we are for just long enough for people to think we actually did something about it.

>>92488
>Hillary Clinton Was Not 'Treated Fairly' During Presidential Election

Is this actually what people are going to tell themselves now that they've exhausted all the other hilariously stupid reasons for their dumpster of a candidate losing the most winnable election of all time?

>>92952
>Trump's endless list of flaws
I didn't know a /news/ board still existed, now I know why. "Muh wayciss, bigot" is non-argumentative drivel. We've had enough of the whiners in the media espousing elitist rhetoric.

>>93346
Exactly. Trump is going to provide a final solution to the leftist question. How is that a bad thing?

>>92488
She wasn't treated fairly--she had the whole election slanted in her favor. That's not fair at all, the cheating cunt.

>>92952
>>ARE YOU FUCKING WITH ME? The media refused to say anything negative about Hillary, they fucking worshiped her, they engaged none stop in identity politics for her, they shamed anyone who didn't support her, they gave Hillary veto powers over their articles, they let Hillary edit their articles, they gave debate questions to her, and they even let her side come up with debate questions to nail Trump.
Anyone that can't see this is true is shilling for the Leftists/Marxists. They just can't let go. It's our turn now, the true working peoples turn. The socialists had 8yrs and imho have done worse than the Repubs.

>Can you source me on any of this from any major news outlet??
shill

>>93419
You know, thinking about it, there's nothing unconstitutional with banning liberals and democrats from our electoral process. We have control in many of the states, so let's do it. Let's stamp out liberals once and for all.

>>93423
Gerrymandering is a much more efficient way to fuck over liberals. You have to at least give people the illusion of control, or they'll start throwing bombs instead.

She won. Why is she upset? The laws forbid her becoming pres. Only the election laws. Bad luck.

>>93458

>She won

What?

>>92594
>It's a "Opinions I don't like deserve to be outlawed" episode with a bonus outright falsehood opening
Close your WND tab, you gullible conspiratard. Instead of advancing any argument at all, you go for absolute horseshit right out of the gate. You have to be mentally challenged to believe this; all it takes is a five-second Google search of "arabic signs border flynn" to prove your own incompetence.
I hope to god your loved ones call you on your crap.

>>93574
she won the popular vote because of california.

>>92540
making such long posts, when you don't know anything.

you're making people stupid with your arrogance.

presidents often campaign like Obama did for Hillary, even George Bush. The only difference is Obama did it more than previous presidents did.

>>93646

>The only difference is Obama did it more than previous presidents did.

I think it's more that the past two presidents campaigned less because they were unpopular or controversial. GWB was unpopular by the end of his term and it he believed that he would do more harm than good in not only the 2008 and 2012 elections, but also in the 2016 primary for his brother. As such he mostly stayed home. Clinton wasn't unpopular, but he was obviously controversial due to the impeachment. As such he was kept away from the campaign trail, though some believe that was a mistake (since he was still popular) and cost Al Gore the election of 2000.

Even further back, HW Bush lost his second term, so it's no wonder they didn't tap him to heavily campaign in '96. Meanwhile Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer and was in no condition to campaign. Similarly Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford before him both lost their second term elections. And then of course we have motherfucking Nixon who was in no shape to campaign for anyone. Similarly LBJ intentionally stayed out because he knew he was radioactive. Finally JFK didn't campaign for anyone because he was dead.

And there you have 50+ years of presidents who could not be tapped as much as Obama because they were controversial or unpopular. And despite all the nay saying, Obama still holds a remarkably high approval rating, so he certainly isn't unpopular, and he doesn't have any Nixon or Clinton tier controversies so he is clean on that front as well. This made him uniquely able to campaign on the behalf of his party's candidate, something we probably haven't seen since Eisenhower.

>>93657
cool insights

Why aren't the news outlets reporting that the Russian hacking occurred OVER A YEAR AGO BEFORE TRUMP EVEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, and tried to hack BOTH the DNC and the RNC, as well as OTHER targets?

That's because they're using the straw bear to DISTRACT from horridly-unethical corruption:

1. The DNC was unethically colluding with Hillary's campaign to undermine Bernie Sanders in the primary.
2. The media unethically gave the primary debate questions to Hillary in advance. And she pretended that nothing happened while she smiled sweetly at Bernie and shook his hand.
3. The media unethically asked Hillary for questions to ask Trump in interviews.
4. The media unethically asked Hillary's campaign to edit articles about her before they were published.
5. Hillary unethically maintained a secret server to cover up her corrupt pay-to-play schemes and then deleted 30,000 emails on the server after they were subpoenaed by a court of law.

How do you distract from all of the above? Draw a red line in your coloring book and threaten "action".

President Obama doesn't think that Hillary was treated fairly?

Was it unfair to her that the Establishment from both parties was backing her?

Was it unfair to her that she had spent $1 billion and still lost to a guy who spent $17 million?

Was it unfair to her that she got uncountable billions in free ads for her and uncountable billions in continuous attack ads against "racist" "sexist" "dangerous" "deplorable" Trump?

How about the sham "investigation" against her corruption that was decided in advance to not go anywhere? There was no grand jury convened, no subpoena power used, and the Attorney General had a secret meeting with her husband, while the FBI staff kept the media away from the meeting? How about the unprecedented abundance of unnecessary immunity deals given to everyone around her with nobody prosecuted? Why were all the devices destroyed before they could be looked at by Congress?

It sounds like she had all the unfair advantages!

>>92488
Very true, she was given exceptionally great, special treatment.

>>93657
While I agree with this post in nearly it's entirety, I think it was a mistake to have Obama campaign as much as he did for Hillary, largely in part because while Obama himself is popular as a person, the policies of both himself and his party are not, hence the electoral wipeout the Democrats saw during his tenure.

>>92488
is he implying that the media Trump treated fair then?

SURE SHE WAS NOT TREATED FAIRLY COUGH COUGHT THE DNC DESTROYING SANDERS CAMPAIGN AT THIS POINT SJWS WILL FIND ANY WAY TO EXPLAIN CLINTONS LOSS WHEN THE AWNSER IS SHE IS A CORRUPT GIT

Saying that Clinton "wasn't treated fairly" this election is total bs, but Trump supporters ripped Clinton apart for those emails, and entirely ignored all the scandals involving Trump. I mean, there was almost no coverage on Trump not releasing his tax returns, despite telling white lies during the debate about why he wasn't releasing his taxes. Did he ever release his taxes? That's pretty bad that our president elect won't tell us how he has been running his business, even though that is literally his only "experience". Then again, Trump supporters are the least educated voting demographic in modern times, so it's not terribly surprising they believed everything Trump said without evidence or explanation

>>93657
>he doesn't have any Nixon or Clinton tier controversies so he is clean on that front as well

>what is Benghazi?
>what is being a muslim?
>what is the email scandal?
>what is being a corporate stooge?
>what is communist medicine?

>>93702
Keep telling yourself that; those "uneducated" voters are going to be in control of this country for the next 50 years.

>>93710
its not just banter, Trump voters had the least college educated individuals in recent years

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-education-level-a-driving-force-this-election-1476401440

http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

it's no wonder Trump got away with so much this election and why his supporters were so easy to influence. And I am legitimately terrified that the uneducated are behind our government for the next 4 years

What I hope Obama does before he leaves office is to give Hillary Clinton a pardon for everything and anything, like Ford did with Nixon. And at the end of it, put "So fuck all y'all Trumpturds."

>>93742
Won't matter to Trump. Karma will eventually catch up to him and Clinton.

>>93702
>Trump. I mean, there was almost no coverage on Trump not releasing his tax returns, despite telling white lies during the debate about why he wasn't releasing his taxes
yeah and there also wasn't coverage of Hillary refusing to release her transcripts, despite saying she would release them "when everyone else does"

>>93458
> only the election laws
> only the Constitution

>>93714
the party of the corporate minority has made a precise science of pandering to the uneducated and impressionable.
I only hope that that's all they do; republicans know their days are numbered if there isn't a fundamental shift in the voting habits of younger members of the electorate. If they can gain enough control, there is a risk that they will seek to severely compromise our democracy or at least look for ways to hobble their competition.

>>93745
which I am also very curious about, but Clinton lost. Trump is our president elect and he is still withholding this information which could be (and likely is) evidence of criminal activity against the government he is supposed to run now. In fact, now that I have read responses to my post, realize why the media has forgotten that our president elect might not have been paying his taxes for the past 20 years: because Trump supporters just deflect these questions with "well Hillary is worse!". Hilary lost and Trump lied to you all once again when he didn't continue investigation on her email scandal. Forget about Hilary the boogyman for a second and ask yourself if you are OK with being lied to and manipulated by a billionaire for his own interests? Or maybe if that might be too revealing for you fragile, uneducated psyche, then just look at the hard facts: Trump is not planning on fulfilling the impossible promises he made while campaigning and is heavily promoting an economic plan that is extremely similar to what cause the economic collapse of 2008, or that he has already hired 2 Goldman Sachs executives (which I remember was a big reason why people opposed Clinton, because she was close with Goldman Sachs executives). Oh sorry did I go over the 20 word limit to your literacy? Did I use some big words that you didn't learn in highschool? Goddamn I fucking hate uneducated peasant scum.

>>93458
I can't tell if you're just an idiot, or somebody who's not remotely funny that's trying to make a joke and failing miserably

>>92592
>Russian hackers
>objectively established beyond reasonable doubt
if they have any evidence that shows it beyond reasonable doubt, they haven't shared it. the only known evidence is some ukranian proxy IPs and left behind russian signatures, all of which seems incompetent for russia's elite spy hacking departments to leave behind, the other options available with the current evidence include...
>non-government related hackers from the region that went directly to wikileaks for their own reasons
>non-government related hackers from the region that sold to the russian government
>multiple US intelligence agencies fighting a proxy war with each other over the presidency

the one thing i can absolutely trust though is not to trust anything the CIA tells the american people without evidence. they have a long history of lying to the homeland. a long history of subverting democracy a long history of fighting for the worst possible political result in the hopes that it gives them more direct control (democracy involves too many moving parts).

>“I think she's worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and I DON'T THINK...

For psychopaths, being a leader is effortless. I've seen lots of people in government keep busy, but by the end of the day, someone above them threw all their work out and started over. I've done it myself with staff that couldn't produce.

The only part I see of Obama that is true is the part where he said "I don't think" because "nothing" he did will last, his words and signature are meaningless. I'd be ok he's a fool: I'm not ok that he is too stupid to realize it and brags about what he's done when the usa is eight years closer to being a third-world, poisoned country where children starve: but not obama, never obama, because when he might have felt pain, he didn't feel anything the way other people--non-psychopaths--would.

Most are so desperate for idols because all they can be is followers to whatever idiots or spastic, dancey, prancey ancey people that come along. Crap rap comes immediately to mind: it's beyond me how anyone would look up to those guys, but I'm not severely pathetic either.

He looks as if he's doing a magic/mind trick with his hand out like that: Does he always look as if he's a [parlor] trick?

I pity him his arrogance.

if she were treated fairly she wouldn't have been on the ballot

>>93880
>>93882
You see, this is why we need to throw out liberals and go back to before the Enlightenment destroyed Western culture.

>Entire establishment media shills for Hillary
>She wasn't treated fairly!

woo laddy

>>93885

>pre-Enlightenment
>no republics, no democracy
>monarchs only (hope you love playing the odds, because if you get a hereditary stinker you're all fucked)
>all positions of note are hereditary
>positions that aren't hereditary but still important are given out by people who have hereditary positions
>all of these positions grant more more official and unofficial rights and privileges that the underclass does not
>the church is the sole source of legitimacy because of divine mandate
>church is therefore unassailable unless you also want to piss off the monarch
>most of the population is poorly educated, if at all
>everyone in cities are dying of plague because poor sanitation and no modern medicine, the only reason these places have population growth is due to immigration
>nearly everyone is a subsistence farmer with no way to improve their lot in life (outside of being picked by the hereditary guys)
>but at least we didn't have degenerate liberals! (never mind that the modern liberal wouldn't even exist for hundreds of years after enlightenment)

Sounds lovely if you enjoy being a freedom-hating uneducated plebeian content to farm dirt for your entire life, which is exactly what you are.

>>92758
I'm a center-left person myself, and I don't give any fucks about the Russian hacking. Oh yes, having a foreign power exercise that kind of subterfuge is frightening and should be fought, but it's not priority numero uno for me. Do you know what is? I'm sure some of these reasons are why most conservatives you talk to don't care either.

Firstly, the corrupt DNC wasn't about to tell anyone the truth. Illegal hacking or leaks are the only way it's going to get out. A corrupt justice system breeds vigilantes. Punishing the vigilante needs to be done, but it's treating the symptom, not the disease.

Secondly, we watch Democrats import voting blocs. We watch contemporary collegiate curricula radicalize people into all sorts of disgusting behaviors like hating the color of their own skin, glorifying professional victimhood or propagating racial strife. We watch leftwing cultural elites completely removed from reality sermonize on and on as if they're in a position to dictate everyone elses moral compass. We watch leftwing demagogues speak with barely contained glee at the dwindling population of Whites, the declining power of men and the perceived irrelevance of any idea they oppose. We watch people not only embrace double standards, but codify them into poisonous intellectual nonsense that allows them to say the most vile things about whoever their rules allow them to without any consideration for consistency.

To put it quite frankly, we don't care about a shadow of a former power half way across the world guarding a nascent sphere of influence with no ability to project its power on its own outside of it. The subversive and insidious elements in our own culture are 10,000 times the threat to national unity the Russian hackers are, because they're poisoning the very foundations of our society. We can survive attacks from the outside, but not the rot within.

>>93759
>if there isn't a fundamental shift in the voting habits of younger member of the electorate.
Leftwing policies will accomplish that since they're now working overtime to incite racial, gender, religious and ethnic conflict wherever they can.

And let's be honest here, it's not like those younger members of the electorate being overwhelmingly liberal isn't the fault of Democratic immigration policies and their monopoly control over the education system.

>>93908
>their monopoly control over the education system

Reality has a liberal bias.

You know K-12 is determined at the state and municipality level, and you have your choice of what college/university you want to attend, if any, right?

What exactly were you taught in high school that was so awfully left-wing? I mean, I was chastised in front of my classmates by two separate teachers (because I did it multiple times) for writing essays in defense of socialism in jr. high.

>>93924
>Reality has a liberal bias.
No it doesn't. It barely had one when being a liberal merely meant being left of center and opposing Bush's Neo-Con bullshit. Reality has had a severely contrasted relationship with the American left ever since it wrapped its oh so tolerant arms around concepts like endless proselytizing on privilege, infantilizing microaggressions, safe spaces, bullshit statistics to push agendas and scientific lysenkoism to push even more agendas.

K-12 is more than just determined at the state and local levels. The type of education the very educators receive to move forward in their professions are endless mires of leftwing groupthink, as are the many colleges and universities across the country. Useless concepts like intersectionality are now filtering down into the higher K-12 grades and they'll only keep going unless we have massive educational reform. Judging from the looks of many collegiate humanties departments, that reform is sorely needed.

>>93907
This. Liberals are far more of an enemy then Putin or Isis. If a few of their cities were to get bombed, I wouldn't shed a tear. We should be forming alliances with other right groups to combat global leftism.

>>93906
The problem with enlightenment is that it introduced concepts such as compassion, tolerance, and free thought. These are of course, have impacted society negatively. What we need is more cruelty, discrimination, and social stratification. At any given moment, only a handful of people really matter. Everyone else is merely a tool of those people, to be sacrificed not for the greater good, but so those exemplary people can prosper.

>>93924
>Reality has a liberal bias.
stupid meme.

>>93924
>You know K-12 is determined at the state and municipality level
Only as so far as federal funding is concerned, which they all dance for like whores.
Or when their textbooks are all made by the same company, who jumped at the opportunity to make record profits revamping their curriculum to be more common core oriented.
And now 2+2=5 is an acceptable answer if you at least show your work. Literally "you tried", the diploma.

>What exactly were you taught in high school that was so awfully left-wing? I mean, I was chastised in front of my classmates by two separate teachers (because I did it multiple times) for writing essays in defense of socialism in jr. high.
When was this, 1965?
High schoolers and college students these days are making projects about the dangers of "white capitalism", equal representation in sex toy coloring, and how the scientific method is really just a too of colonial oppression.

>>93924
Reality has a fascist bias.

>>93960

>greater good
>a handful of people prosper by treading over the many
>many suffer for no benefit to themselves so an even smaller number attain great benefits

Son I'm not sure you know what "greater good' means.

Also "cruelty, discrimination, and social stratification" doesn't do shit to move society forward, just look at any third world dictatorship and marvel at how a handful of people live better than the others but still below the average of more "compassionate, tolerant, and free thinking" societies. The whole point of a "compassionate and tolerant" society is that every citizen has a chance to prove their worth and potentially advance society as a whole. Obviously some idiots have equated "equal opportunity" with "equal outcomes" which is counter intuitive to the whole thing but the general principle behind it is good. Even more autocratic leaders like Napoleon understood that merit far outweighed heredity and everyone was allowed opportunities to advance based on what they were able to do instead of being regulated to some class where that talent would never see the light of day.

And in the end, you'd never be able to maintain your pre-enlightenment society anyway since social pressures would ultimately crack the system French Revolution style just like in real history. People who feel they have been getting the short end of the stick eventually rise up, just look at the 2016 election for fucks sake.

Also anyone who supports this sort of unequal society seems to be under the impression that they would be graced as one of the beneficiaries when the reality is they have high odds of being dirt farmers (or dead because they pissed off someone who wasn't a dirt farmer).

>>93970

>When was this, 1965?

Different guy here, ended high school last decade and we had none of that bullshit, so either there's been a dramatic shift in the past 8 or so years or you've found the most extreme example ever or are just pulling it out of your ass.

>>93976
>so either there's been a dramatic shift in the past 8 or so years
I'd believe it. At this point, teachers are treated so poorly that the only people leaving college actually wanting to teach at public schools are either inhumanly motivated to teach or have an agenda to push and want a captive audience and the authority to introduce whatever she wants into the classroom with no justification other than her being the teacher and her lesson being on the next test.

Shit, as bad as standardized testing was, at least in made sure the majority of focus in public schools was targeted at actual school subjects.

>>93979

The example is still pretty extreme, and I feel that the ratio for teachers is still towards "inhumanely motivated" because the loony-bin agenda pushers are an incredibly small minority and most of those types would rather start internet blogs instead of teach small children how to count to feminism.

In addition, I'd argue that those extreme examples are not the norm because only the worst teachers and methods make the news (and the internet) while good teachers stay word of mouth if they get any recognition at all. Basically nobody talks about the majority of the time the system works as intended because they would rather focus on fixing the few times the system fails but then mistake discussion of failures for frequency of failures. Of course, this is assuming those examples are even real, because it's certainly not unheard of for people to just make up problems to rally against (one of the more famous ones on here is the image of common core math problems being projected: turns out that image was photoshopped and the original classroom projection is totally innocuous).

>>93970
>When was this, 1965?

It was c. 2000. Older teachers, and one anecdote isn't data, obviously, but the point is that your perception/imagination of how the world is (obviously shaped courtesy of far-right media if you're citing about sex toy coloring) is not a fair representation at all of the "educational system" that government has say over, either in Blue states or Red.

And your understanding of how K-12 funding works is completely wrong btw. The textbook thing has some truth to it.

Right, being endorsed by every major newspaper and having everything about her down to the clothes on her body being complimented as goddesslike hopefull and all the attractive words "mother, woman, proud American" etc is "not being treated fairly"

>>94078

The fact that you think those things can be used against a person's character shows that you are not treating them fairly

>>94088
Where did he use those events as evidence against Clinton's character? For that matter, where did he mention her character at all?

>>93982
It doesn't matter if it's a small minority. The internet and the rules of political motivation mean that's all that's needed. Their ideas are accepted and normalized even within the supposedly sane majority. How do you think the myths of privilege and wage gaps persist? How do you think such revised takes on history gain traction?

>>93991
When was the last time you actually sat down and looked over what passes for curricula in some of the countries largest school districts? Are you arguing things like the Dear Colleague letter and the carrot-trap that is federal funding isn't indicative of what kind of control the federal government has over education?

Have you actually read what passes for intelligent discourse and enlightened ideas from our supposed "best and brightest," at American universities? Taking issue with the coloring of sexy toys seems right up their alley given they unironically and with full sincerity do the same with actual children's toys.

>>92952

>Can you source me on any of this from any major news outlet??

Here you go, there is more but can't post pics

https://youtu.be/watch?time_continue=22&v=IdYRN8Clddw

>>93991
>It was c. 2000
Oh, 16 years ago, that's way more modern and timely.

>>94093
>When was the last time you actually sat down and looked over what passes for curricula in some of the countries largest school districts?
2000 obviously. 16 years ago.

If you continue to argue with him, you're just going to get accused of being either a /pol/ lurker or exhibiting some sort of false consciousnesses created by right-wing fake news.
Ironically enough, silencing your ideological opposition because they could be seen as right-wing is also a major issue in the US school system today, especially in colleges and universities, but that's too much for him to consider and therefor must be a conspiracy, even after providing citations, which will also get written off as fake news.

This board is a superfluous echo chamber for center-left people who are more at home in Facebook comments.
Any vaguely right-wing news source gets shot down as an illegitimate source to start a thread with, while some random person's twitter from NPR however is not.

>>94147
>Any vaguely right-wing news source gets shot down as an illegitimate source to start a thread with, while some random person's twitter from NPR however is not.

An unfortunate side effect of /pol/ kicking the lefties out without a suitable /leftypol/ for them to congregate in, I think.

>>94093

Minority views do not always spread to the majority (if that was true tumblr would control the Democrats and /pol/ would control the Republicans) especially when there are multiple pressures to keep them out. Teachers are checked not only the old guard (senior teachers, teachers' union when applicable) and the administration (from vice principle on up) but also by parents and availability of standardized material and testing. In addition, the decentralized nature of US education means that the influence of a few radical teachers can never really spread beyond their immediate peers, and even then K-12 teachers are typically self reliant and set their own curriculum within the established standards.

The only way you might see these absurd examples become the norm is if federal standards are changed, at which point such standards wouldn't last long because they're fucking ridiculous.

>>94147

It's not fake news but hilariously sensationalized pieces meant to stir outrage with partisans of both sides. "Equal representation in sex toy coloring and how the scientific method is really just a too of colonial oppression" as curriculum is absolutely ridiculous and anybody who thinks that would be anywhere near the norm is a gullible fool. Just like all those sensationalist news stories of "the Trump supporters are going wild in the streets and lynching everybody!" and "all Trump supporters are literally /pol/" exist purely to spread terror in the left, so do these articles on leftist education spread terror for the right. The truth is that these are isolated incidents that don't represent the average and are usually solved by the time the article is written (teacher fired or suspect in custody).

This is not to say that (K-12) education has a leftward lean, but it's just that: a lean.

College is a different story, and that's more that young people are radicalizing themselves by putting themselves in echo chambers than the fault of the staff I think.

>>94147

>Any vaguely right-wing news source gets shot down as an illegitimate source to start a thread with, while some random person's twitter from NPR however is not.

Things with bad sources stay up because /news/ has no mods or janitors who give a shit (if they even bother looking in here in the first place). Why do you think the namefag "American Patriot" is never banned but gets to spam the exact same post in every thread?

>>94190
Tumblr and /pol/ are not causes. They don't control anything. They're symptoms. Universities aren't the way they are because of Tumblr, Tumblr is the way it is because of universities. There is no pressure on the Left to expunge blatantly misleading statistics or outright fabrications like repeating the wage gap ad nauseam. The president used to repeat these very same lines. There's not a single gender studies course you can take in the entire country that doesn't include patriarchy theory taught as empirical fact.

You act as if the internet doesn't exist and these young teachers don't share lesson plans or cultivate ideas with each other or even take to heart the utter monopoly of thought that inhabited the halls where they acquired their own educations to become a teacher in the first place. Those young college students radicalizing themselves within echo-chambers are becoming the teachers and filtering it all down through the public school systems. It's not a centralized or intensely coordinated effort, because it doesn't have to be.

I'm a center-left person and I want to utterly destroy what every American university's humanities department has come to represent. It's not just a question of one-sided majorities anymore. These departments regularly churn out half-baked ideas never tested by ideological consistency or rigorous thought masquerading as something more behind a veneer of professional language and pseudo-scientific dressing. It's no coincidence that fields dominated by this sort of thinking are undergoing massive crises of replicability at the moment, because those running experiments and studies are doing so with the sole intention of manufacturing evidence for their assertions. They've become nothing more than the publicly subsidized leftwing counterpart to corporate bought firms distributing scientific and philosophical bullshit.

>>94303
>These departments regularly churn out half-baked ideas never tested by ideological consistency or rigorous thought masquerading as something more behind a veneer of professional language and pseudo-scientific dressing. It's no coincidence that fields dominated by this sort of thinking are undergoing massive crises of replicability at the moment, because those running experiments and studies are doing so with the sole intention of manufacturing evidence for their assertions. They've become nothing more than the publicly subsidized leftwing counterpart to corporate bought firms distributing scientific and philosophical bullshit.

Yeah this is just absolute conspiracy shit.

There is now actually pushback from the old guard of the humanities scholars that too many departments and grants are asking too much for citations from formal math and new data collection when they're teaching literary criticism and history of ethics. Collaborative studies are important, but if you're pressuring a scholar of philosophy to do her own linguistic analysis on spectrographs of gorilla vocalizations while writing a paper on the ethical and social implications of gorilla language, then you're stretching her expertise and making her output in all areas less efficient than if you gave your grant money to a collaboration. Actual case, btw. The point is philosophers are there to teach and produce analysis and preserve historical and cultural tradition -- the definition of all fields of humanities. When you get into experiments and data you get into the liberal arts and sciences, and when you mix you do collaborations.

Regardless, every uni has way smaller humanities departments than every LAS department for the very reason you'd expect, and grants going to humanities scholars are much smaller for the very reason you'd expect, so humanities scholars tend to write more books for general public sale for the very reason you'd expect.