WARNING: DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, COMMUNISTS DECLARE WAR ON “FASCIST TRUMP REGIME”

Are extremists preparing for violence to stop Trump?

| Infowars.com – JANUARY 6, 2017

The most radical extremists in the United States have launched a desperate battle plan against Donald Trump and his supporters in the last days before he takes office.

A group calling itself Refuse Fascism, led by the likes of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and black Marxist Cornel West, are spearheading the final effort to block Trump’s inauguration and have taken out a full page ad in the New York Times declaring, “NO! In the name of humanity, we refuse to accept a fascist America!”

The ad goes on to lay out the plan of action to stop Trump, utilizing all of the predictable buzzwords and rhetoric necessary to justify acting “together outside normal channels,” and comparing the “Trump regime” to that of Hitler and the rise of Nazi Germany.

“The Trump Regime Must and Can Be Stopped Before It Starts!” reads the hysterical propaganda. “By any definition, Donald Trump is a fascist. He has put together a regime who will carry out this program, and worse.”

“Our anger must now become massive resistance—before Donald Trump is inaugurated and has the full reins of power in his hands. Should we fail to rise with determination and daring in our millions now to stop this, the consequences for humanity will be disastrous.”

Included in their plans is the goal to “fill the D.C. streets with millions,” beginning with the arrival of protestors during Martin Luther King weekend, January 14-16, to oppose “the white supremacist, American chauvinist, religiously bigoted character of this fascist movement and regime which draw forward everything thus far built and build further.”

In the week leading up to presidential inauguration, they are calling for “millions more [to] demonstrate in every major city and small town all over US and the world, demanding that Trump-Pence be prevented from taking office before January 20.”

Signatories to their ‘Call to Action’ include Ayers, West, Rosie O’Donnell, Ed Asner, CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill, and a slew of far-left actors, musicians, professors, Islamists, and activists.

While Americans may be more weary than wary of roving bands of “liberal celebrities” throwing tantrums over Donald Trump, no gang with Bill Ayers as a ringleader should be dismissed as irrelevant.

Ayers is a radical communist and former leader of the domestic terrorism organization, the Weather Underground, who were infiltrated by FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, in the 1970s.

Grathwohl revealed the Weathermen’s stated goals of violently overthrowing the U.S. government and forcing dissenters into reeducation camps. They also planned to eliminate 25-30 million Americans by execution.

The Weathermen were largely university-educated intellectuals with high degrees and social status.

They realized their barbaric approach of bombing government buildings and murdering police officers was not going to be effective enough, so they formulated a new game plan, assimilating themselves into the education system and political positions as a means of subversion from inside the system.

Ayers once summarized the philosophy of the Weather Underground thusly: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”

He and his co-conspiring terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, became professors at the University of Illinois and Northwestern University School of Law, respectively.

This is after they were on the FBI’s ‘Wantedlist, and before they helped launch the political career of Barack Obama.

The cast and crew of Refuse Fascism reads like a 21st Century reincarnation of the Weather Underground, and given the onslaught of threats against the life of Donald Trump and his supporters, acute scrutiny should be focused on this extremist group and all heads should be on a swivel in Washington D.C. from now on.

Facebook: Dan Lyman

WASH POST Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat…

screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-4-21-21-pm

BY GLENN GREENWALD

IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of “independent researchers.” Baron’s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings:

screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-4-23-27-pm

But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism — from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article, and many others — including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” — the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post … does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”).

What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is:

But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism — from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article, and many others — including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” — the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post … does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”).

What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is:

 screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-4-24-19-pm

WHETHER THE POST’S false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).

But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.

Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.)

And while it’s true that all media outlets make mistakes, and that even the most careful journalism sometimes errs, those facts do not remotely mitigate the Post’s behavior here. In these cases, they did not make good faith mistakes after engaging in careful journalism. With both stories, they were reckless (at best) from the start, and the glaring deficiencies in the reporting were immediately self-evident (which is why both stories were widely attacked upon publication).

As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question — the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility — until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity — so as to ensure no accountability — whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.

THE MOST IRONIC aspect of all this is that it is mainstream journalists — the very people who have become obsessed with the crusade against Fake News — who play the key role in enabling and fueling this dissemination of false stories. They do so not only by uncritically spreading them, but also by taking little or no steps to notify the public of their falsity.

The Post’s epic debacle this weekend regarding its electric grid fiction vividly illustrates this dynamic. As I noted on Saturday, many journalists reacted to this story the same way they do every story about Russia: They instantly click and re-tweet and share the story without the slightest critical scrutiny. That these claims are constantly based on the whispers of anonymous officials and accompanied by no evidence whatsoever gives those journalists no pause at all; any official claim that Russia and Putin are behind some global evil is instantly treated as Truth. That’s a significant reason papers like the Post are incentivized to recklessly publish stories of this kind. They know they will be praised and rewarded no matter the accuracy or reliability because their Cause — the agenda — is the right one.

On Friday night, immediately after the Post’s story was published, one of the most dramatic pronouncements came from the New York Times’s editorial writer Brent Staples, who said this:

Now that this story has collapsed and been fully retracted, what has Staples done to note that this tweet was false? Just like Baron, absolutely nothing. Actually, that’s not quite accurate, as he did do something: At some point after Friday night, he quietly deleted his tweet without comment. He has not uttered a word about the fact that the story he promoted has collapsed, and that what he told his 16,000-plus followers — along with the countless number of people who re-tweeted the dramatic claim of this prominent journalist — turned out to be totally false in every respect.

Even more instructive is the case of MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin, a prolific and skilled social media user who has seen his following explode this year with a constant stream of anti-Trump content. On Friday night, when the Post story was published, Griffin hyped it with a series of tweets designed to make the story seem as menacing and consequential as possible. That included hysterical statements from Vermont officials — who believed the Post’s false claim — that in retrospect are unbelievably embarrassing.

screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-4-26-25-pm

That tweet from Griffin — convincing people that Putin was endangering the health and safety of Vermonters — was re-tweeted more than 1,000 times. His other similar tweets — such as this one featuring Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warning that Putin was trying to “shut down [the grid] in the middle of winter” — were also widely spread.

But the next day, the crux of the story collapsed — the Post’s editor’s note acknowledged that “there is no indication” that “Russian hackers had penetrated the electricity grid” — and Griffin said nothing. Indeed, he said nothing further on any of this until yesterday — four days after his series of widely shared tweets — in which he simply re-tweeted a Post reporter noting an “update” that the story was false without providing any comment himself:

screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-4-27-15-pm

In contrast to Griffin’s original inflammatory tweets about the Russian menace, which were widely and enthusiastically spread, this after-the-fact correction has a paltry 289 re-tweets. Thus, a small fraction of those who were exposed to Griffin’s sensationalistic hyping of this story ended up learning that all of it was false.

I genuinely do not mean to single out these individual journalists for scorn. They are just illustrative of a very common dynamic: Any story that bolsters the prevailing D.C. orthodoxy on the Russia Threat, no matter how dubious, is spread far and wide. And then, as has happened so often, when the story turns out to be false or misleading, little or nothing is done to correct the deceitful effects. And, most amazingly of all, these are the same people constantly decrying the threat posed by Fake News.

 

A VERY COMMON dynamic is driving all of this: media groupthink, greatly exacerbated (as I described on Saturday) by the incentive scheme of Twitter. As the grand media failure of 2002 demonstrated, American journalists are highly susceptible to fueling and leading the parade in demonizing a new Foreign Enemy rather than exerting restraint and skepticism in evaluating the true nature of that threat.

It is no coincidence that many of the most embarrassing journalistic debacles of this year involve the Russia Threat, and they all involve this same dynamic. Perhaps the worst one was the facially ridiculous, pre-election Slate story — which multiple outlets (including The Intercept) had been offered but passed on — alleging that Trump had created a secret server to communicate with a Russian bank; that story was so widely shared that even the Clinton campaign ended up hyping it — a tweet that, by itself, was re-tweeted almost 12,000 times.

screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-4-28-21-pm

But only a small percentage of those who heard of it ended up hearing of the major walk back and debunking from other outlets. The same is true of The Guardian story from last week on WikiLeaks and Putin that ended up going viral, only to have its retraction barely noticed because most of the journalists who spread the story did not bother to note it.

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

Indeed, in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues — including the Snowden reporting — nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work I’ve done questioning and challenging claims about Russian hacking and the threat posed by that country generally. This is being engineered not by random, fringe accounts, but by the most prominent Democratic pundits with the largest media followings.

I’ve been transformed, overnight, into an early adherent of alt-right ideology, an avid fan of Breitbart, an enthusiastic Trump supporter, and — needless to say  — a Kremlin operative. That’s literally the explicit script they’re now using, often with outright fabrications of what I say (see here for one particularly glaring example).

They, of course, know all of this is false. A primary focus of the last 10 years of my journalism has been a defense of the civil liberties of Muslims. I wrote an entire book on the racism and inequality inherent in the U.S. justice system. My legal career involved numerous representations of victims of racial discrimination. I was one of the first journalists to condemn the misleadingly “neutral” approach to reporting on Trump and to call for more explicit condemnations of his extremism and lies. I was one of the few to defend Jorge Ramos from widespread media attacks when he challenged Trump’s immigration extremism. Along with many others, I tried to warn Democrats that nominating a candidate as unpopular as Hillary Clinton risked a Trump victory. And as someone who is very publicly in a same-sex, inter-racial marriage — with someone just elected to public office as a socialist — I make for a very unlikely alt-right leader, to put that mildly.

The malice of this campaign is exceeded only by its blatant stupidity. Even having to dignify it with a defense is depressing, though once it becomes this widespread, one has little choice.

But this is the climate Democrats have successfully cultivated — where anyone dissenting or even expressing skepticism about their deeply self-serving Russia narrative is the target of coordinated and potent smears; where, as The Nation’s James Carden documented yesterday, skepticism is literally equated with treason. And the converse is equally true: Those who disseminate claims and stories that bolster this narrative — no matter how divorced from reason and evidence they are — receive an array of benefits and rewards.

That the story ends up being completely discredited matters little. The damage is done, and the benefits received. Fake News in the narrow sense of that term is certainly something worth worrying about. But whatever one wants to call this type of behavior from the Post, it is a much greater menace given how far the reach is of the institutions that engage in it.

Washington Post latest blunder proves fake news is fine… if it involves Russia

Published on Jan 2, 2017

‘Fake news’ is making a comeback to the headlines, and hashtags – after the Washington Post retracts its big story on Russian hackers penetrating the US power grid. Apparently, they didn’t. The paper has now added an editorial correction, but for some it was too little, too late. Many are already accusing the outlet of spreading fake news supposedly used to influence various aspects of the political process.

arvdr 

STOP the press ! The russians are coming !
LVPN 1

Western media propagates fake news to demonise Putin/Russia because they know that their fake corrupted narrative is being exposed by the great reporting of RT and others news sources Russia also defends Syria a nation the Western Media oligarchs want to turn into a Libya 2.0!!
Herr Wolf

+David Olinger More like I hope it can be contained should these psychopaths start one.
Gary M

Putin is not against the American people. He is against our dumbass leader Obama
Greenpoloboy3

To get a full refund at our local supermarket you can say the Russian’s damaged the packaging and you get your money back.
Kenzofeis

READ ALL ABOUT IT IN WASHINGTON PEST! READ ALL ABOUT IT! RUSSIANS HACKED A HOLE IN A SAUSAGE BAG ! RUSSIAN SUB FOUND HIDING AMONG THE SAUSAGES! READ ALL ABOUT IT IN WASHINGTON PEST!

Washington Post Admits Their “Russian Hacking” Story is Fake News

Published on Jan 3, 2017

The Washington Post retracted another fake story they published after it was debunked. This time they claimed that ‘Russian hackers’ breached the U.S. electrical grid, and put people in a panic, but once again, their story was exposed as fake. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story.

Sigy Sauer 

I love how the MSM keeps digging there own grave!
Andrew Fishman

They can’t seem to get the idea that they aren’t the only source of news now and people can find out alternative stories and make up their own minds.
Oveida Sinclair

I trust RT a lot more then I do of anything coming out of the MSM
USA- USA

Mark..thank you sir for doing what you do. I’m a new subscriber and I’m glad I found your channel…we need more truth tellers.
John Data

Fake News always contains the following phrase Officials Say Souces Say Experts Say Studies Say Reports Say The UN Says NGO … Say Scientists Say
Daniel Dillon prophecy update

MAINSTREAM MEDIA is IRRELEVANT PUPPETS NO-ONE WATCHES
Rodney Williams

I was watching this channel when it had less than 500 thousand subscribers. The people want the truth, Mark delivers.
mars s

Who are these “experts” and “officials” ??
Mary jane

Lmao we don’t have a reason to be scared of Russia unless we back them into a corner, hopefully trump will rectify obamas bullshit and give Russia some form of dignity.

Journalists Exposed By WIKILEAKS Set To Cover White House…

BY PETER HASSON

WikiLeaks’ publication of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta revealed the close ties between prominent journalists and the Clinton campaign. Many of those same journalists will now be covering the Trump White House.

CNBC chief political correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood demonstrated clear partisanship in his many email exchanges with Podesta.

Harwood told Podesta to “watch out” for Dr. Ben Carson during the Republican primary. “Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general,” Harwood warned, including video clips of Carson’s political positions.

screen-shot-2017-01-02-at-3-16-35-pm

In a December 2015 email to Podesta, Harwood claimed the Republican Party was “veering off the rails” and bragged about provoking Trump during a Republican presidential debate, where he asked Trump if he was running “a comic book version of a presidential campaign.” (RELATED: John Harwood Says Democrats Lost Because Of ‘White Fear’)

screen-shot-2017-01-02-at-3-18-12-pm

“I imagine…” Harwood titled the email, continuing in the body: “…that Obama feels some (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails.”

“I certainly am feeling that way with respect to how I questioned Trump at our debate.”

As CNBC’s chief political correspondent, Harwood will play a central role in the network’s coverage of the Trump administration. Harwood has yet to respond to repeated requests from TheDC regarding his email exchanges with the Clinton campaign.

Last month, the New York Times announced it would be hiring Politico reporter Glenn Thrush to cover the Trump White House. Emails released by WikiLeaks showed Thrush sending stories to Clinton staffers for approval before publication. (RELATED: New York Times Hires Reporter Who Sent Stories To Clinton Staffers For Approval)

“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to [you],” he wrote in an April 30, 2015 email to Podesta, including five paragraphs from a piece titled “Hillary’s big money dilemma.”

“Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this,” Thrush added. “Tell me if I fucked up anything.”

“No problems here,” Podesta replied.

On April 17, 2015, Thrush sent an email to Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri with the subject line: “pls read asap — the [Jennifer Palmieri] bits — don’t share.”

Palmieri forwarded Thrush’s email to other Clinton campaign staffers, writing: “He did me courtesy of sending what he is going to say about me. Seems fine.”
screen-shot-2017-01-02-at-3-19-06-pm

Other journalists who will cover the Trump White House were named as personal favorites of Clinton campaign staffers.

A July 2015 media plan described New York Times Magazine chief national correspondent Mark Leibovich as “sympathetic.” WikiLeaks emails revealed Leibovich giving Palmieri “veto” power over which anecdotes he would include in his stories.

Leaked documents provided directly to The Daily Caller by hacker Guccifer 2.0 in October revealed which journalists were cozy with the Clinton campaign. Included in the leak was a list of reporters who attended an off-the-record cocktail party with Clinton campaign strategist Joel Benenson, a list that included several New York Times reporters and Thrush.

Another document in the leak revealed the campaign’s strategies for placing stories with friendly journalists and described the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman (who was then with Politico) as a “friendly journalist.”

A memo reportedly created by traveling press secretary Nick Merrill stated, “We are all in agreement that the time is right place a story with a friendly journalist in the coming days that positions us a little more transparently while achieving the above goals.”

“We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” the memo continued. “While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/journalists-exposed-by-wikileaks-will-now-cover-trump-white-house/#ixzz4UdpsSy73

 

Top 10 Fake News Stories of 2016 from Mainstream Media

Published on Dec 21, 2016

Here’s the list of the top 10 fake news stories of the year. Fake news has been a huge problem for many years, but this year ‘Fake News’ became one of the top stories of the year, and in this video media analyst Mark Dice breaks down his list.

Nunya Bizzz

podesta looks like a peddie
Right Wing News

#1 fake news story: “Hillary will win in a landslide” 😂
Samuel Thomas

2016 has been great for Politics! DESTROYING CLINTON…. 3X!!!!!
Steve Jobs

The fake news media will say this video about fake news is fake news. Until eventually the whole planets collapses into a inception style fake news vortex. 🙌
virtualguitarist

There is enough msm fake news out there, you could make a series of these top ten vids monthly.
PearlyMickey

Fake news: Obama is the best president ever.
Bestivitiness

#1 fake news. “Trump is racist”
T Bo

I’m sure those 7 dislikes are the employees of ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, CBS and Telemundo….

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKED GREAT IN 2008 AND IN 2012.

Patriot Post Staff · Dec. 20, 2016

Insight: “The moral justification of capitalism is man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; it is the recognition that man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, not a sacrificial animal serving anyone’s need.” —Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Belly laugh of the week: “My suggestion to the president-elect is, you know, going through the legislative process is always better, in part because it’s harder to undo.” —Barack “Executive Order” Obama

Braying Jackass: “[Donald Trump] doesn’t know much. One thing he does know is how to get angry, white men to vote for him.”Bill Clinton

Sore loser: “James Comey cost her the election.”Bill Clinton

Hindsight is 20/20: “I wish I had seen around that corner and not had that discussion with the former president [Bill Clinton], as innocuous as it was, because it did give people concern.”AG Loretta Lynch

Ya think? “This past election was challenging for me as a citizen to watch and experience. It was painful.”Michelle Obama

Dezinformatsia: “By overwhelming majorities, Americans would prefer to elect the president by direct popular vote, not filtered through the antiquated mechanism of the Electoral College. … The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin.”New York Times editorial board

For the record: “Just a reminder as we keep hearing about the popular vote: No one was trying to win it. A race for popular vote would be totally different.”David French

And last… “The electoral college worked great in 2008 and in 2012. The only difference this time is the outcome is one the NYT doesn’t like.”Stephen Miller