Battling Trump over the next 4 years is going to require us to have an accurate picture of the world & the ability to apply critical thinking. This post does neither.

The report from last week actually does NOT contain evidence that Russians "hacked" the election. It is so embarrassing to watch my fellow liberal friends swallow this bullshit.

Whether Mexico will pay for the wall is a *prediction*, not a fact. Nobody knows whether there will be a wall and nobody knows whether Mexico will pay for it.

Chuck Schumer being a clown is an opinion, not a factual statement.

Yes, Trump did mock the reporter. You get 1 point.

Fine, DC shops not sold out. 1 more point.

Whether Meryl Streep is overrated is an opinion, not a factual statement.

@1:

There's no "evidence the Russians 'hacked' the election, because the intelligence agencies clearly noted that was an assessment they were not prepared to make; NOT that it didn't happen.

Mexico has already emphatically stated they will NOT pay for Trump's Wall.

The point being, Trump exhibits a tendency to treat his opinions as if they were facts, and his supporters do likewise. Additionally, he tends to mix erroneous, unfactual statements along with his opinions in such a way as to obfuscate his meaning, so that later he can claim he didn't say what he did in fact say.

You can parse the semantics of the Russian report ("he said the thing in the report didn't say what the officials do not believe there isn't not evidence for blah blah blah"). The fact is that this whole thing is a huge distraction. Nobody "hacked" the DNC -- somebody was able to guess the password. Plus, the materials that were published from the "hack" were genuine.

We liberals are so mad that Clinton lost that we're grasping at anything that will make us feel better. Clinton didn't lose -- the election was stolen! Please. 50% of Clinton voters believe Russia literally hacked the vote tallies.

Again, let us differentiate between facts, opinions, & predictions. The question of whether Mexico will pay for the wall is a prediction, not a matter of fact. Sure, it's factual that Mexico says they won't pay for it. But then again, about 100% of the political elite in the US said Trump couldn't win.

@2 is correct and Trump still has very Tiny Hands and massive Russian debts

>> Nobody "hacked" the DNC -- somebody was able to guess the password.

And you are worried about semantics. Guessing the password is a very common -- probably the most common -- form of hacking. The Russians broke into various "genuine" sources of data in an effort to sway the election. It really doesn't make much difference how they did it. Like the remarkably similar Watergate break in, it is illegal. Whether Trump, or any of his minions knew about it -- and when they knew about it -- will probably be the big question in a couple years when the impeachment hearings begin.

Fighting Trump will require people smart enough to tell the difference between facts, opinions, predictions and wishes.

You say Trump will get impeached over this Russia scandal? People who believe this are the same people who said his campaign wouldn't get off the ground, that he wouldn't become the nominee, that he would drop out of the face due to the embarrassing revelations, that he wouldn't win the election, and that the electoral college wouldn't vote for him.

Hell, I wished for all of those things, but wishing doesn't make it so.

It is so embarrassing to see my smart liberal friends latch onto this Russia scandal because it makes them feel better. Thank God for Greenwald & Taibbi who can hold more than one thought in their brain at the same time: 1) Trump is terrible & dangerous 2) we should be skeptical of the Russia scandal because the intelligence community regularly lies and/or gets things wrong.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fea…

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/gl…

Was he wrong about the thing he was mocking a disabled guy for? He said the guy couldn't remember something? Could he? I assume whatever it was is a big deal because this goes back over a year, and it's still at the top of the news.

@7:

It's not so much what he said, but rather the manner in which he said it, namely, the spasmodic gesticulation and gurning facial expression, both meant to convey to his audience, "hey, look at me! I'm imitating a disabled guy!" If Clinton had done something even remotely like that, she would have been pilloried by the Right for her insensitivity - but, Trump gets a free pass, because as always IOKIYAR...

@8: To be fair, Trump was pilloried by the media when it happened, and continues to be to this day. It is just that his voting base did not care, whereas Clinton's voting base would have, one has to imagine.