Paul Brancato

Prediction - Clinton will not call for a recount. But she should, because we need to know if machines were hacked.

I'm in the camp that thinks the film is unaltered and that it's a distraction to question it.

Weren't LBJ and JEH neighbors and poker buddies?

Ron - FaceBook now claims they are carefully going over the wave of fake news that is inundating their website who pay FB for the privilege. Others have published lists too. It's a major problem. Of course with the Onion, which I don't find particularly funny and therefore don't read, it's easy to see it's parodied not real. Other sites, unfortunately mostly far right, are not letting their readers know that. I can't believe some of the things I read when I dig, and they are fake for sure. So is it a new form of propaganda? I can tell you this - it's dangerous. Those sites have an affect on people, most of whom unlike you are not so quick to accept that they've been had. I've got a few relatives like that. My problem is not left right. I'm actually quite respectful of differences of opinion. But one thing that I doubt many saw coming is the extreme difficulty in separating fact from outright fiction on the internet, which was supposed to be a leveler of sorts, a democratization of information. Now it's being used as a propaganda tool by some pretty nasty folks, one of whom is an important member of Trump's team. We haven't talked about Breitbart yet. It's going to take a lot of careful digging on the part of fair minded truth seekers like you and I and I think nearly everyone who posts here to stay moored to reality. I've already posted to my FB friends my promise that I will not post anything I haven't carefully vetted. In. In my case the news I fell for twice was fake dirt on Trump. Boy do I wish I knew who was floating that stuff around, and why. This whole subject has become a major focus of my attention.

Eldridge Cleaver - Democrat? I'd say agent provocateur. And don't forget he became a Moony later.

Trump U. Was a good place to start. It takes more work to get media on board with substantive issues for sure.

Seems obvious that the limo took off only after SS agent Clint Hill jumps on the rear. What else should I be looking at?

Ron - you seem like a guy whose mind is open, but who can't figure out what to feed it. Try looking at the lists of fake news outlets that are finally, too late but better than never, being identified.

Ron - this is fake news. Cliff - it doesn't work to talk about Trump's sexual fantasies. Didn't we see the liberal media outlets push this issue? And didn't Trump brush them off successfully? I'm not saying that women lied, I'm saying there are better issues to talk about. an example - when Jeff Sessions is up for AG, or the Supreme Court, will the Democrats focus on the hot button issue of racism to the relative exclusion of other issues? I'm betting that's exactly what they will do, and exactly what the media will cover. And that will be a mistake. Didn't stop Clarence Thomas, who was eminently unqualified for so many reasons. It's yellow journalism no matter which side propagates it.

Kathleen - you are not the only Trump voter here, and I'm all for diversity of opinion. But the things you bring up - new controversies about Obama, Clinton murders - indicate that you have swallowed some spiked Koolaid. In the interests of full disclosure, what do you think Trump should say to his white supremacist backers (just them, not dissing the rest at all)? Nothing? Send messages through his surrogates to journalists who ask that he is against racism? Make a public statement personally, perhaps in a joint press conference with Obama, denouncing racism and white nationalism?

And Ron, something tells me you're on board with that.

I call it a plus. It's the people who want to live in a pluralistic multicultural country that will win this battle of ideas, and it's not a two party issue, it's a human issue.

That was great thanks Sandy.

Tulsi Gabbard could be a star. She is smart, Charismatic, and courageous. Gavin Newsom - same. Brilliant mind learning his chops.

Joe - agree. as for George Bush his name should be on the chalkboard, definitely.

Glenn - I suggest we try to look at the electoral college not from a sour grapes prospective but historically.You say the reason are perfectly sound, even though I am sure you know that the term 'popular vote' is distinctly American. Elsewhere it is simply called 'the vote'. i saw an interesting segment on this recently. It seems that Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to abolish the electoral college, even though it was he that came up with the idea in the first place. His reasoning was interesting. He had conceived of it as a kind of check and balance against an electorate that might make a choice that the wise men in the electoral college could nullify if they found it unacceptable for some reason. He never thought it would become a robotic rubber stamp. He wanted electors to be able vote their conscience if they, from their educated elite positions they deemed it necessary. If there is an historian reading this that knows the subject and thinks I have it wrong, I'm all ears. if the electors are just robots without a shred of independence, the only thing left to look at is why it is fair or not. I saw a figure recently that illustrates why I think it is unfair. Were California to receive a proportional number of electoral votes based on population to a small state like Wyoming for instance, which I believe gets 3 electoral votes, it would get not 53, but 199 votes. So what is the perfectly sound reason you speak of? Is it to give rural states more relative say?

Clearly Trump is a perfect subject and title for a set of cards. It's been so many years now and I'm too lazy. Of course back then we didn't have the internet so research was much harder.

Guess we have something in common Cliff. Who published the cards?

That's astounding. Jack Ruby told her to be vanilla girl. She never stops. i stand by my comment that good researchers should do what they can to avoid her conference. Yes I get that they have the same publisher. No it doesn't make their research somehow worthless. I wouldn't paint them with the same brush. But to attend a conference where a self promoting xxxx is running it, and then to be polite and not confront her or say how you really feel when you get the lectern, is - what? Don't even know the right words. It's a damn shame that researchers have to make a decision to look the other way because it directly affects their income.

Ron - it's funny, but voter suppression is real and deliberate. Democrats these days just don't do the things Republicans do to limit the vote. It's a very cynical ruse.

Exactly right

Harry Reid is too late. Clinton's campaign decided it was in their best interest not to talk about the emails, rather than confront the accuser. They were wrong. Why do you think they made that strategic choice? It made them look like they were defending the indefensible. As Cliff says, the Republicans declared war a long time ago, and this move by Comey was really aggressive. Giuliani practically came in his pants thinking about it. So the response was not strong enough. Trump handled the accusations against him with flat out denials and threats. I thought the Democrats overplayed their hand on the sexual stuff, at the expense of any meaningful exploration of his businesses, including Trump University, which to me seems like the biggest scandal. So here we are. Harry Reid suddenly grows balls. The Demos seem to be reorganizing towards the progressive wing. They need a healthy transfusion of young blood. Perhaps the best thing that will come out of this mess is a new wave of political activism. Be the change and all that.

Cliff - ? - come on. Were you stuck watching Fox News?

Jim - did you exonerate Comey?

You will. Suggest you listen to her. I was open at first, and read the book you got your info from. I think you have good intuition. I've read and appreciated a lot of your posts. Haslam wrote an interesting book which he amended for his second addition after Baker interjected her personal story. The differences between the two made me think she had seen an opening and found a sucker. That's my intuition. Now she is supported by a publisher and organizes and speaks at conferences. She makes a living doing this. I am sure others with personal knowledge will post here soon, like Pamela Brown. I think she is a disaster for the research community, and if it weren't for financial ties to the same publisher I believe all of the writers would jump off her ship.