30 ms·

Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected? Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him.

by qaq 10y ago

Mikeb85 10y ago
> Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him. Or, you know, doesn't want WWIII, like the rest of us.
- qaq 10y ago
  Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war?
  - greendragon 10y ago
    You're right, Putin shouldn't stand by idly as America builds a missile shield around Russia to negate their ability to launch nukes... We already have a deterrent for war with Russia. Russia knows this, I think the US is forgetting it.
    - qaq 10y ago
      A lot of countries forget a lot of things US & other major nuclear powers conveniently forgot how they negotiated Ukraine to surrender worlds 3d largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for "security guarantees". US is acting prudently in building up missile shield around Russia since in the event of russia collapse who knows what will happen to their nuclear weapons.
      - rangibaby 10y ago
        There was worry with the collapse of the USSR that Russian nukes would be donated to terrorists. It was a very common theme in 90s fiction. It ended up not happening at all, in fact the only major nuclear proliferation since then has been from Pakistan to North Korea, which is not mentioned by the western media because Pakistan is a very important ally against the Soviets. Wait...
        qaq 10y ago
        The worry was more then reasonable the lucky outcome of worst scenario not materializing is not an evidence that there was no risk.
      - greendragon 10y ago
        I don't even think a missile shield is necessarily bad, but it is a little troubling to see the attitude of taking offense that Russia just doesn't do what it's told. Forgetting Russia is a superpower too. Should other countries have a plan in case of USA collapse? At least our codes got upgraded from a string of 0s... But I imagine there are some foreign officials worried. Russia has started calling America "not-agreement-capable" after recent events in Syria and a UNSC meeting.
        qaq 10y ago
        Russia is not a super power and to be honest I am not totally sure even USSR ever was.
        greendragon 10y ago
        How are you defining a superpower such that Russia is not a member and maybe the USSR wasn't one?
        qaq 10y ago
        I don't have a good definition but their ability to project power is/was greatly exaggerated.
        int_19h 10y ago
        Russia can do whatever it wants in its jurisdiction. But it cannot be allowed to dictate the bilateral terms between other countries. If Ukraine or Poland wants to be in NATO, it's not up to Russia to say "no". Especially given the histories of those countries, and Russia's role therein. And that's basically what that "OMG NATO is surrounding Russia" thing boils down to.
        icebraining 10y ago
        "it's not up to Russia" It is if they have the power to stop it. The whole "moral justification" part is for plebes like us. If powers feel threatened by the movements of other powers in neighboring countries, they will act[1]. How they spin it to the public is secondary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Quarantine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Quarantin...
      - powertower 10y ago
        Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Those where Russian nukes stationed in the regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin had operational control of all nukes pre and post the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There was no negotiations required to get them back except for a procedural "note of record". They would have been taken by force if necessary.
        qaq 10y ago
        Have fun with your powertrip Russia was one of the republics of USSR, so far Russia has one success story in taking something by force and most likely it will play out very similar to the fate of USSR.
        addicted 10y ago
        One would have thought that the Russians would know this better than anybody after the USSR's collapse but military might is meaningless if you don't have the economic might to back it up. Russia is little more than a petro state whose economic fortunes are almost completely related to the price of oil. Putin should be focusing on broadening the Russian economic base but is instead engaging in stupid military endeavors that are only kidding Russia friends. The EU would love to trade with Russia but his European tinkering had made it impossible for them to do so. The US is obviously not a fan. Give it a few years and he'll probably piss off China too (or they'll find the US and European relationships more useful) and the Ryssians will have little more to do than reminisce about the time they annexed Crimea.
        qaq 10y ago
        Well as things stand now Russia's GDP is less than GDP of NYC :) So how they still believe they can be a super power is beyond me.China is far from being Russia's ally they are using the current situation to take over Russia's resources and make Russia extremely dependent. It looks like the end game is peaceful return of the territories that Russia annexed from China or installation of puppet government at some point.
        10y ago
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    And what bold advances has Russia made? They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers. They seized (bloodlessly I might add) Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base. I might also add that 'Maidan' was the 2nd western-sponsored 'revolution' in Ukraine in a decade. Now Russia is defending a long-time ally in the middle east from western-backed terrorists. Then there's also NATO advancing all around Russia, the various 'defensive' missile systems being installed by US-allied countries who happen to encircle Russia, etc... > Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war? The only one making bold advances is the US, and yes, Russia isn't yielding, and the US is making it a problem. But you're right, it is a deterrent to war - if a weak ruler like Yeltsin were still in power Russia would probably be in another dozen pieces right now, with wars raging in half of them...
    - ting_bu_dung 10y ago
      >And what bold advances has Russia made? > They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers. > They seized Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Mikeb85 10y ago
        > wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting And which whole nation was conquered?
      - powertower 10y ago
        You are spinning this. A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work. When this happened, the people of [what was then called] the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" voted in favor of leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed. Ukraine as a country has only existed for 20 some years. Before that is was a loose territory of different regions. The East was mostly ethnic Russians, the West was mostly other groups. And Crimea was always Russian. The majority of the force used in Crimea composed of Russian solders that stood outside the gates of Ukrainian military bases, blocking them from leaving, to carry out orders to stop the referendum... Which turned out to be over 95% in favor of rejoining Russia.
marketanarchist 10y ago
Most likely? Based on what? The more probable reason in my eyes is that criminal Hillary is more likely to engage Russia in conflict.
- qaq 10y ago
  I mean Putin has dirt on Trump (based on Trumps shady dealings with Ukrainian and Russian Oligarchs)
  - rfrank 10y ago
    The entire world has dirt on Clinton given her email server security.
feklar 10y ago
The Putin/Trump friendship is largely invented by the media. For example when Putin supposedly called Trump 'brilliant' he used a Russian term that means 'bright colorful personality' not intelligent. Our media knows this but ran with the illusion of Putin admiring Trump because it serves domestic political talking points. Trump's whole platform of America First(tm) populist rhetoric would be detrimental to any agenda Russia has. It seems to me that embarassing leaks are best distracted away from the political news cycle by manufacturing a sexy story about Russian interference instead of trying to spin the content of the leaks themselves.
- qaq 10y ago
  I didn't say there was friendship. Trump and his buddy and partner Phil Ruffin are also partners and buddies with ukrainian oligarch Onyshenko who at present is hiding out in Russia as ukrainian parliament voted to lift his immunity (as a parliament member) so he can be prosecuted for his various schemes. He is most likely one of the key pawns for Putin for having influence on Trump. So far only minor things came out relating to Paul Manafort, I am guessing closer to elections something major related to the above connection will come out.
- ting_bu_dung 10y ago
  such lies. 1.) Paul Manafort, Trump's previous manager, received a cash payment of more than $12 million from Pro-Russia party in Ukraine 2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine. 3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical." 4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign. 5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on. 6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region. 7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama. 8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected? That's not the only plausible interpretation of the intervention. A desire for weak (perhaps particularly in terms of international standing) US leader could lead to efforts to specifically weaken Clinton's standing and nothing against Trump if Trump was seen as either unlikely to win in any case or already weak (or both). Or, perhaps, the overt manipulation on behalf of Russia that favors Trump is, itself, an attack on Trump's standing, while the overt content leaked is an attack on Clinton's. A desire for Trump to win is not necessary to explain Russian intervention of the type that is alleged and apparent here.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  If I were Putin I would be mad at Clinton for punking me re: Gaddafi. Russia made a good-faith attempt to stop Libya from descending into total chaos and well, look where it got them. I think it was a timely reminder to Putin that NATO has no interest in playing nice with Russia, and informed his actions in Ukraine and Syria.
  - qaq 10y ago
    I am obviously biased being from Ukraine but Putin is being active mostly because he perceives EU as being extremely weak and US President as weak so he has a window to act. If he received some serious level of resistance (not military) he would quickly back down, but he only receives very minor resistance which is interpreted as farther sign of west's weakness.
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      Do you live in Ukraine now? What is the general mood in the different parts of the country? If you do live there I would like to read your opinions, there is so much spin and lies in the media (from both sides).
      - qaq 10y ago
        I moved to US a year ago, there is always spin in the media, so if I can help providing some useful information would be glad to do so.
greendragon 10y ago
Dirt on Trump? The dude's 70 years old and fucking rich, there's no way there is enough dirt only known to Putin that could manipulate him. If there was such a quantity of dirt, it would have leaked beyond Putin, and we'd have heard about it. The most enjoyable part of this whole election is seeing so many otherwise smart people losing their minds and trying to find any way to keep Trump from the White House, disbelieve in his legitimacy if he actually wins, or just plain deny reality.
- ting_bu_dung 10y ago
  Donald Trump Makes History With Zero Major Newspaper Endorsements Historical & Groundbreaking Endorsements Compiled: The Chicago Tribune endorsed a Non-Republican for only the 2nd time in 163-years by supporting Johnson The Atlantic endorsed a Presidential candidate for only the 3rd time in 159-years by supporting Clinton The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 148-years by supporting Clinton Detroit News endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 143-years by supporting Johnson The Arizona Republic endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 126-years by supporting Clinton Philadelphia endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 108-years by supporting Clinton The New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Johnson The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Clinton The Desert Sun endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 90-years by supporting Clinton The Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 76-years by supporting Clinton The Tulsa World refused to endorse a Republican or Presidential Candidate for the 1st time in 72-years The Houston Chronicle endorsed a Democrat for only the 3rd time in 70-years by supporting Clinton The Richmond-Times Dispatch endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 36-years by supporting Johnson USA Today gave a endorsement/non-endorsement for the 1st time in 34-years by opposing Trump The Dallas Voice endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 32-years by supporting Clinton Wired endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 25-years by supporting Clinton http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-Trump-Makes-History-With-Zero-Major-9887263.php http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-... so everyone is stupid in your opinion?
  - 10y ago

Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected? Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him.

by qaq 10y ago

Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected? Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him.

Mikeb85 10y ago

> Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him. Or, you know, doesn't want WWIII, like the rest of us.

qaq 10y ago
Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war?
- greendragon 10y ago
  You're right, Putin shouldn't stand by idly as America builds a missile shield around Russia to negate their ability to launch nukes... We already have a deterrent for war with Russia. Russia knows this, I think the US is forgetting it.
  - qaq 10y ago
    A lot of countries forget a lot of things US & other major nuclear powers conveniently forgot how they negotiated Ukraine to surrender worlds 3d largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for "security guarantees". US is acting prudently in building up missile shield around Russia since in the event of russia collapse who knows what will happen to their nuclear weapons.
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      There was worry with the collapse of the USSR that Russian nukes would be donated to terrorists. It was a very common theme in 90s fiction. It ended up not happening at all, in fact the only major nuclear proliferation since then has been from Pakistan to North Korea, which is not mentioned by the western media because Pakistan is a very important ally against the Soviets. Wait...
      - qaq 10y ago
        The worry was more then reasonable the lucky outcome of worst scenario not materializing is not an evidence that there was no risk.
    - greendragon 10y ago
      I don't even think a missile shield is necessarily bad, but it is a little troubling to see the attitude of taking offense that Russia just doesn't do what it's told. Forgetting Russia is a superpower too. Should other countries have a plan in case of USA collapse? At least our codes got upgraded from a string of 0s... But I imagine there are some foreign officials worried. Russia has started calling America "not-agreement-capable" after recent events in Syria and a UNSC meeting.
      - qaq 10y ago
        Russia is not a super power and to be honest I am not totally sure even USSR ever was.
        greendragon 10y ago
        How are you defining a superpower such that Russia is not a member and maybe the USSR wasn't one?
        qaq 10y ago
        I don't have a good definition but their ability to project power is/was greatly exaggerated.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        Russia can do whatever it wants in its jurisdiction. But it cannot be allowed to dictate the bilateral terms between other countries. If Ukraine or Poland wants to be in NATO, it's not up to Russia to say "no". Especially given the histories of those countries, and Russia's role therein. And that's basically what that "OMG NATO is surrounding Russia" thing boils down to.
        icebraining 10y ago
        "it's not up to Russia" It is if they have the power to stop it. The whole "moral justification" part is for plebes like us. If powers feel threatened by the movements of other powers in neighboring countries, they will act[1]. How they spin it to the public is secondary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Quarantine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Quarantin...
    - powertower 10y ago
      Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Those where Russian nukes stationed in the regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin had operational control of all nukes pre and post the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There was no negotiations required to get them back except for a procedural "note of record". They would have been taken by force if necessary.
      - qaq 10y ago
        Have fun with your powertrip Russia was one of the republics of USSR, so far Russia has one success story in taking something by force and most likely it will play out very similar to the fate of USSR.
        addicted 10y ago
        One would have thought that the Russians would know this better than anybody after the USSR's collapse but military might is meaningless if you don't have the economic might to back it up. Russia is little more than a petro state whose economic fortunes are almost completely related to the price of oil. Putin should be focusing on broadening the Russian economic base but is instead engaging in stupid military endeavors that are only kidding Russia friends. The EU would love to trade with Russia but his European tinkering had made it impossible for them to do so. The US is obviously not a fan. Give it a few years and he'll probably piss off China too (or they'll find the US and European relationships more useful) and the Ryssians will have little more to do than reminisce about the time they annexed Crimea.
        qaq 10y ago
        Well as things stand now Russia's GDP is less than GDP of NYC :) So how they still believe they can be a super power is beyond me.China is far from being Russia's ally they are using the current situation to take over Russia's resources and make Russia extremely dependent. It looks like the end game is peaceful return of the territories that Russia annexed from China or installation of puppet government at some point.
        10y ago
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  And what bold advances has Russia made? They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers. They seized (bloodlessly I might add) Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base. I might also add that 'Maidan' was the 2nd western-sponsored 'revolution' in Ukraine in a decade. Now Russia is defending a long-time ally in the middle east from western-backed terrorists. Then there's also NATO advancing all around Russia, the various 'defensive' missile systems being installed by US-allied countries who happen to encircle Russia, etc... > Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war? The only one making bold advances is the US, and yes, Russia isn't yielding, and the US is making it a problem. But you're right, it is a deterrent to war - if a weak ruler like Yeltsin were still in power Russia would probably be in another dozen pieces right now, with wars raging in half of them...
  - ting_bu_dung 10y ago
    >And what bold advances has Russia made? > They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers. > They seized Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      > wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting And which whole nation was conquered?
    - powertower 10y ago
      You are spinning this. A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work. When this happened, the people of [what was then called] the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" voted in favor of leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed. Ukraine as a country has only existed for 20 some years. Before that is was a loose territory of different regions. The East was mostly ethnic Russians, the West was mostly other groups. And Crimea was always Russian. The majority of the force used in Crimea composed of Russian solders that stood outside the gates of Ukrainian military bases, blocking them from leaving, to carry out orders to stop the referendum... Which turned out to be over 95% in favor of rejoining Russia.

marketanarchist 10y ago

Most likely? Based on what? The more probable reason in my eyes is that criminal Hillary is more likely to engage Russia in conflict.

qaq 10y ago
I mean Putin has dirt on Trump (based on Trumps shady dealings with Ukrainian and Russian Oligarchs)
- rfrank 10y ago
  The entire world has dirt on Clinton given her email server security.

feklar 10y ago

The Putin/Trump friendship is largely invented by the media. For example when Putin supposedly called Trump 'brilliant' he used a Russian term that means 'bright colorful personality' not intelligent. Our media knows this but ran with the illusion of Putin admiring Trump because it serves domestic political talking points. Trump's whole platform of America First(tm) populist rhetoric would be detrimental to any agenda Russia has. It seems to me that embarassing leaks are best distracted away from the political news cycle by manufacturing a sexy story about Russian interference instead of trying to spin the content of the leaks themselves.

qaq 10y ago
I didn't say there was friendship. Trump and his buddy and partner Phil Ruffin are also partners and buddies with ukrainian oligarch Onyshenko who at present is hiding out in Russia as ukrainian parliament voted to lift his immunity (as a parliament member) so he can be prosecuted for his various schemes. He is most likely one of the key pawns for Putin for having influence on Trump. So far only minor things came out relating to Paul Manafort, I am guessing closer to elections something major related to the above connection will come out.
ting_bu_dung 10y ago
such lies. 1.) Paul Manafort, Trump's previous manager, received a cash payment of more than $12 million from Pro-Russia party in Ukraine 2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine. 3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical." 4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign. 5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on. 6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region. 7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama. 8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected? That's not the only plausible interpretation of the intervention. A desire for weak (perhaps particularly in terms of international standing) US leader could lead to efforts to specifically weaken Clinton's standing and nothing against Trump if Trump was seen as either unlikely to win in any case or already weak (or both). Or, perhaps, the overt manipulation on behalf of Russia that favors Trump is, itself, an attack on Trump's standing, while the overt content leaked is an attack on Clinton's. A desire for Trump to win is not necessary to explain Russian intervention of the type that is alleged and apparent here.

rangibaby 10y ago
If I were Putin I would be mad at Clinton for punking me re: Gaddafi. Russia made a good-faith attempt to stop Libya from descending into total chaos and well, look where it got them. I think it was a timely reminder to Putin that NATO has no interest in playing nice with Russia, and informed his actions in Ukraine and Syria.
- qaq 10y ago
  I am obviously biased being from Ukraine but Putin is being active mostly because he perceives EU as being extremely weak and US President as weak so he has a window to act. If he received some serious level of resistance (not military) he would quickly back down, but he only receives very minor resistance which is interpreted as farther sign of west's weakness.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    Do you live in Ukraine now? What is the general mood in the different parts of the country? If you do live there I would like to read your opinions, there is so much spin and lies in the media (from both sides).
    - qaq 10y ago
      I moved to US a year ago, there is always spin in the media, so if I can help providing some useful information would be glad to do so.

greendragon 10y ago

Dirt on Trump? The dude's 70 years old and fucking rich, there's no way there is enough dirt only known to Putin that could manipulate him. If there was such a quantity of dirt, it would have leaked beyond Putin, and we'd have heard about it. The most enjoyable part of this whole election is seeing so many otherwise smart people losing their minds and trying to find any way to keep Trump from the White House, disbelieve in his legitimacy if he actually wins, or just plain deny reality.

ting_bu_dung 10y ago
Donald Trump Makes History With Zero Major Newspaper Endorsements Historical & Groundbreaking Endorsements Compiled: The Chicago Tribune endorsed a Non-Republican for only the 2nd time in 163-years by supporting Johnson The Atlantic endorsed a Presidential candidate for only the 3rd time in 159-years by supporting Clinton The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 148-years by supporting Clinton Detroit News endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 143-years by supporting Johnson The Arizona Republic endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 126-years by supporting Clinton Philadelphia endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 108-years by supporting Clinton The New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Johnson The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Clinton The Desert Sun endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 90-years by supporting Clinton The Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 76-years by supporting Clinton The Tulsa World refused to endorse a Republican or Presidential Candidate for the 1st time in 72-years The Houston Chronicle endorsed a Democrat for only the 3rd time in 70-years by supporting Clinton The Richmond-Times Dispatch endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 36-years by supporting Johnson USA Today gave a endorsement/non-endorsement for the 1st time in 34-years by opposing Trump The Dallas Voice endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 32-years by supporting Clinton Wired endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 25-years by supporting Clinton http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-Trump-Makes-History-With-Zero-Major-9887263.php http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-... so everyone is stupid in your opinion?
- 10y ago