"Poor fella", lol.

Also how many multiple alt accounts we got going in this thread? Several sub-100 post posters "randomly" just show up in this thread. Things that make you go "hmmmm". 

where are you getting this from?

just because I post something I see in the news to get a constructive discussion out of it here, I'm somehow a Trump hater.

True, there is very few facts here, but at least you can reasonably find mine. What do you have other than your "knowns and logic"  You said you don't get your knowns from Facebook, but I'm starting to doubt that...I think we've taken this too far. I'm going to chill from now on.

Edit: Disregard what follows I was off base maybe not completely but enough

Now that is satire.

No, people know you're a Trump (republican) hater from your posts in other threads.  You've been very toxic when it comes to those that support Trump, and this is coming from someone that doesn't even like the guy (to be fair i didn't like her either though). I guess we should all be a little salty these candidates sucked on ice.

Edit: the bolded and underlined are incorrect

And guess what? He was still the better choice.

whoa? where have I been toxic? well excuse me for trying to correct someones misunderstandings especially when they come at me with false accusations, and nothing to go on besides personal hunches (not you). anyways if I saw news articles like this about hillary I would post that too. I believe there is threads about Hillary's emails here already somewhere, not started by me, but that is because someone beat me to it.

Now you may believe what you want, but since i'm being accused of being bias, let me set this clear once and for all. I don't support either Hillary or Trump, I honestly prefer Sander's over them both and people know that. (except you). Even if there was dirt found about Sanders I would post that too, but there is none to my knowledge.

------

On Topic:

Now the CIA knew before hand something was amiss but didn't tell the public because they were afraid it might've look like they wanted to sway the results, but for some reason the FBI had no problem making what they found public. so what if Russia did do something, this Ex-CIA operative saying on camera he'll want a revote because that's what other countries in Europe would do if they find out if the CIA did something to their elections. The plot thickens.

I must have been thinking of someone else, you are anti-trump but going through your posts i do not see where you have been toxic regarding Trump supporters. My bad, I also edited my post.

anti-trump and hillary. no bias since I'm anti to both lol

Soooo why the witch hunt comment, then? o.O

I simply pointed out that Trump's rather, er, 'flexible' definition of the truth has made it so that the man's word on the issue of pretty much anything- policy, personal, etc- unreliable, and that they're going to need outside investigation and confirmation to back it up.  This doesn't just apply to the Russia thing, but really anything he says; there's a saying that 'Talk Is Cheap,' but with Trump it's essentially worthless. The fact that he's also been stubbornly shifty when it comes to Russia being involved at ALL in the hacking- the whole "Fat guy sitting in Jersey' thing- also starts to come across as protesting a tad too much.

And from what I understand, the call for an investigation is pretty bipartisan, with Republicans chiming in along with the Democrats. If there have been shenanigans that the rest of the Republican party didn't know about, I'm guessing they'd want to find out BEFORE they risk having him represent their party for the next four years. =P If Trump is in any way compromised- I mean, beyond the catering-to-big-businesses compromised- then anything he does will end up reflecting on the Republican party even after he's gone. And with Rex Tillerson now, I believe, confirmed for Secretary of State, those concerns are just going to grow.

I agree, seems reasonable. You haven't made a judgement.

What would you consider grounds for condemning Trump going forward that someone who thinks he should be given a chance? I think saying there are concerns is completely fair but specifically, what would need to turn up to make those concerns something genuinely corrupt? How would that be proven and shown? How would liberals be satisfied that those concerns were baseless?

See that's my issue here really with the liberals and that includes deskpro2k3 and Soundwave in this thread, they have this style of placing a bomb then running away and then placing another bomb. It's what all liberals do, it's very hard to actually have a conversation.

Trump did this, ok well he might not have done that but he did that, and that, oh he did that too (etc)

Don't take that the wrong way, it's not intended to be inflammatory, it's how it reads. There doesn't seem to be any concrete points to respond to apart from adhominem.

Well, here's the thing.

I HAVE made a judgement, but that doesn't mean it's set in stone, more a 'work in progress' based on what has happened so far; judgement need not be this binary, 'Totally Open,' 'Totally Judged' thing, outside the legal system of course. When it comes to one's own personal judgement, all we really have to go on is what we see and hear, and how we measure that against our own beliefs and values. As new information is made available, one should be prepared to re-evaluate their previously held beliefs, judgements, etc.

With that in mind, I've done everything I can to strip away the things that Trump has not, himself, said and done when it comes to my considerations. So I won't put much weight on stuff like the report that Ivanka Trump sat in on Trump's meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, or the report that Trump wanted to give his children high security clearances, or the idea that diplomats could feel pressured to stay at Trump-owned hotels, etc.

But even then, what I am left with has me set rather firmly against him for the moment, and nothing really 'For' Trump other than a hopeless sense of 'Well, crap, we're stuck with him now, maybe it WON'T be a complete disaster!'

This could certainly change once he gets into office, IF the actions he undertakes then are more promising than those he has undertaken now.

Allow me to present my reasons, if you wish to address me specifically on any or all, I will not run away. ^.^ (Though may occasionally take a day or two; holiday craziness and such.)

****

For example, I call him a liar. I don't choose that word lightly, or randomly, and it's in no way unrelated to the issue, because Trump being a liar is actually pretty crucial when it comes to processing and assigning 'weight' to anything he says. If you disagree with my assessment that he us a liar, I can go into more detail of course, but for the sake of brevity I'll keep this post moving.  But if you at least agree that Trump's been as 'loose' with the truth as any crooked politician, I assume you also agree that it's important people KNOW about that when dealing with something Trump says. In the same way one should keep Peter Molyneux's track record in mind every time he goes on record gushing about how totally ground-breaking his next game will be.

In addition, his cabinet picks have been less than encouraging. We're talking about a man who railed against the idea that the current establishment was bought and paid for by the rich elite, who was going to run for office and serve the common people. Yet once he was elected, IMMEDIATELY turned around and filled his cabinet with the rich elite. Goldman Sachs execs, bankers, oil bigwigs, people who donated large sums to his campaign and even in the case of Linda McMahon at least to his FOUNDATION. The cabinet is like an 'Everything Wrong With The Political System' diorama. Will they do some good? Probably! Will they also do bad? Probably! Are the industries they're linked to going to thrive even more under their watch, at virtually any cost? That's a pretty safe bet, and at that point the question becomes 'What will the cost end up being?'

Which brings us to his choice to have the EPA run by a man who consistently worked to undermine the very idea that climate change is a man-made concern; it's a viewpoint that runs in direct contradiction to the conclusions the vast majority of the scientific community, BUT is pretty damn convenient for most of the industries in the world since the regulations that spawn in response to fighting climate change cost these companies money. The tobacco industry used to dig in its heels against claims that smoking cigarettes were linked to such icky things as lung cancer, even after the Surgeon General decisively settled the matter in 1964, because ultimately that kind of shit, even when true, makes it harder to sell cigarettes. =P

(Interesting side note, guess who was on the Tobacco industry's side about that back in 2000! Our upcoming Vice President Elect! The fact that his family business, now defunct, operated a chain of a couple of hundred stores called 'Tobacco Road' proooobably had nothing to do with it. I wasn't really going anywhere with this, just dug it up while fleshing out the Tobacco industry parallel and found it a funny coincidence. xP )

His choice for who will oversee the nation's education system raises red flags that, rather than try to improve the nation's public education system, his administration may instead seek to defund and dismantle that system in favor of private, for-profit institutions.

The fact that he has delayed bringing up any explanation on how he would avoid conflicts of interest is concerning- especially given he eschewed a blind trust entirely. (Because no, putting your children in charge of your business is NOT a blind trust. Not unless he plans to avoiding contacting them at all for the next four years.)

Jesus, this post is getting long. So, real quick, his total lack of restraint when dealing with criticism, his bright idea to leverage a jab against the One China policy, (not as a principled stance against the tyranny of a foreign nation, mind you, but strictly because he think he can use it to make China do what he wants at the bargaining table,) that Department of Energy questionnaire that the Trump transition team now insists was distributed by someone in that team without the consent or knowledge of the others, SO MUCH about the Carrier deal and a lot of the shit he said when he was just running to be the Republican candidate that, since he's a liar, may or may not even be anything he plans to pursue.

*****

Phew. x_x

Honestly, while a connection to Russia- which could have major and potentially catastrophic global implications if true, especially if Russia's still got territorial expansion in mind- is worth concern, there's also a lot of OTHER stuff I've got to worry about. =P

Right now Trump is just arranging his pieces on the board, no significant changes (positive OR negative) have been made because he has yet to grasp the reins. But the pieces he has chosen- their beliefs, their history and their actions- should be considered.

Giving Trump a chance doesn't mean ignoring everything he does UNTIL he's actually in the Oval Office, after all.