TakeYouToTasker

See, this is what makes people like you !@#$s. Of course you have the right to say stupid **** like this, and of course those muppets have the right to set up an "after school Satan Club", but why would you? The only point of these things is to mock those you don't agree with, which does nothing but antagonize, isn't constructive to dialog or problem resolution, and only serves to make things worse. But hey, congratulations, you've achieved saying words. Great job, dim wit. You're nothing more than a left wing version of that idiot Milo Yiannopolous.

This is fine.

No worries. I'd also suggest hiding it with a spoilers tag.

Jeez, man. How about some not safe for work tags? FFS

We don't know that it was the Russians.

Some agencies are, others dispute it. I believe there is an internal struggle over the workings of what amounts to a soft, largely bloodless coup being attempted by the CIA. I think things spiraled out of control. Once the DNC staffer was assassinated, and I believe he was assassinated as a warning to Assange who was much harder to touch, but Assange began talking anyway, this is simply the only avenue left to them. The charge, at least my charge, is not that the CIA is targeting whistleblowers. After all, Assange was left completely alone until Hillary Clinton and the DNC became his targets. My charge is that the CIA (or at least a Clinton loyalist faction of it) is targeting those who hurt the Clintons and the entrenched establishment at the behest of the Clintons and the DNC.

Assange very transparently hinted at it, and was disappeared about a month afterwards. Craig Murray is directly saying so now.

They do, and they've made their declaration. But Wikileaks doesn't drive the story. Wikileaks presents the information.

My theory is that they are running cover for the fact that they are responsible for the death of Seth Rich at the behest of the Clintons. "The Russians did it" isn't all that high risk when the alternative is "we are conducting political assassinations of United States citizens within the United States at the direction of the DNC and the Clintons".

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

I know the origins, but as he "exists" today, Santa Claus is a secular symbol of capitalism. Most religious folks that I know and associate with have raised their children without the Santa Claus myth, as the symbolism is in direct conflict with "the true meaning of Christmas"; and lends itself towards a rejection of Jesus as a "similar childhood fancy" later in life.

We don't know. It may be reasonable to assume watch that movie is what caused him to lose his soul in the first place, the direct cause of the entire plot of the movie. Religious symbols. such as Santa Claus...

Like Marsellus Wallace?

I'm not sure how that's relevant, nor have you sourced it, or defined substantial.

The Jewish Question? You actually used that phrasing? No, there's a great deal more than conceding to illegitimate and ignorant racist attitudes separating you and Gregg; as if that by itself were some small hurdle: "Gee whiz, Gregg, all you have to do is abandon morality, human decency, critical thinking, and a general desire to not be ****ty to people, and you could be just like me!" One thing I'm sure of is that you'll never work in marketing. Gregg is actually a good person whom I respect deeply, while you reside in the basket of irredeemable deplorables whom Hillary Clinton attempted to color the entire opposing electorate as.

I question it. First of all, the CIA is claiming that the RNC was hacked as well, which the RNC denies. Also Julian Assange claimed that the source of the leak was not the Russians. I leave open a strong possibility that the CIA, or some of it's operatives, did the hacking.

I think that's a rather myopic view point. Trump has stated that his intention was to deregulate across the board. Bringing in individuals hostile to the bloat and function of their own departments is a great way to institute true reform. As to the EPA, I'm hoping to see it stripped down to it's original mandate: clean air and water. Oh, and put Cliven Bundy in charge of the Bureau of Land Management.

We don't know that it was the Russians.

I generally go out of my way to not associate with his ilk, and honestly had no idea. You're saying that most of the alt-right are holocaust deniers? If that's true, it should be advertised, as that seems like a fantastic way to permanently delegitimize them.

So... In addition to all your other stupidity, you're also a freaking holocaust denier?!?!?! ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ... BWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, that's rich...

Was Clinton grossly incompetent or was she criminally negligent?

Which of course is not evidence that it could not be further consolidated, nor that the Department hasn't grown unnecessarily large and unwieldy since it's inception. Regardless, my argument is that an individual who at some point stated that a department could be done away with would likely be a good choice to reform the department; not that the department should be abolished.

I think we both understand that vital roles can be consolidated as the federal government is made leaner.

The only conclusion any reasonable person can come to given Comey's statements is that Clinton was either grossly incompetent, or that she was criminally negligent. I do not believe Hillary Clinton to be grossly incompetent. While not an adept campaigner, she is a policy wonk, is quite bright, and operates what may be the worlds largest criminal organization. This only leaves open one other possibility. Comey chose not to recommend indictment, where he clearly could have, consistent with prior indictments for similar offenses. If Comey wanted to damage Clinton, he could have. If you want to claim he announced the second round of investigations for political reasons, you'll first have to explain why he didn't do so with the initial investigations, and then explain why a public statement introducing the second investigation at the request of Congress was inappropriate.

It does, but that's beside my point. The point I was making was that if Comey had any political inclination to do damage to Clinton, he could have done so. The fact that he didn't makes claims about the second round of investigations meaningless.