So let me get this straight -- what you're saying is that it's nothing more than a partisan attack if allegations about *both* Republicans and Democrats aren't made at the same time, and given equal weight, correct? Because you realize that doesn't make any sense... the allegations here decidedly aren't equivalent, and your attempt to impose some sort of false equivalency between them makes you look rather partisan yourself.

Allegations against George Soros, and other allegations regarding Clinton campaign donations, have definitely come from what I'd consider highly partisan sources, and the allegations themselves appear highly partisan as well. But the current allegations regarding Russian involvement in the November election, specifically in regards to leaked emails from John Podesta and the DNC, are coming from the CIA, a well-funded and highly-regarded government agency, which traditionally has provided useful and non-partisan intelligence to both the executive branch of the U.S. government, as well as to the U.S. Congress. Keep in mind that what the CIA is alleging here is not that Trump or anyone in the Republican party was involved in the release of the emails; the CIA is saying that agents under the ultimate authority of Vladimir Putin removed electronic documents from systems belonging to the Democratic party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, then leaked those documents to the press in an attempt to sway voter oppinion during the election.

Regardless of your party affiliation, if those allegations are true, it's a deeply disturbing situation, and it definitely deserves an official investigation. Today it was the Russians; tomorrow it might be the Chinese, or the North Koreans, or someone else with little love and potentially a lot of hate for America. It's being awfully short-sighted to think that these kinds of shenanigans can't or won't impact Republicans in the future. The opportunities for out-and-out blackmail of political candidates, or extortion, or a whole variety of other nefarious activities are rife. Trump's virtual dismissal of the potential political problems here with foreign actors influencing American elections rings hollow, and I very much hope Republicans will spend a little time working to preserve the democratic process itself, instead of focusing only on the conservative-friendly results of the last election.

Interestingly, conservatives seem more likely to use argument #1, whereas liberals prefer argument #2. However, in almost every case I've seen recently, neither style of argument actually persuades anymore, likely because no one is really listening to facts these days.

Sadly, in our current post-truth reality, whoever speaks loudest and most often is the one who wins, and they can lie about anything and everything without consequence.

I think you're underestimating both the scope and the magnitude of the problem.

First, consider that the problem we're facing here isn't just going to affect only low-skilled workers. Artificial intelligence, automation and robotics will ultimately impact higher-skilled workers too. It's only a question of time. If IBM's Watson can already diagnose illness better than a physician with a decade of college and on-the-job education under their belt, than even doctors have something to worry about. Don't forget that we're at the point now where nearly 1/3 of all Americans already have at least a bachelor's degree. When the economy itself needs fewer and fewer workers to produce more and more goods and services, a few extra free junior college units isn't going to keep average Americans employed.

Finally, the end-game here is all-too obvious; with an increasing population chasing fewer and fewer jobs, a basic income at 60% of the poverty line isn't going to do anything but ensure grinding poverty in the future, likely for decades to come, as the vast majority of Americans will never be able to find work again.

Overall, after careful consideration of the problem, I think this plan sucks. We as a nation ought to be able to do better than that. A handful of the uber-rich presiding over a nation of hundreds of millions of perpetual beggars is what I would consider a nightmare scenario. It does not have to be this way. I pray that we'll find some way to avoid this kind of apocalyptic scenario. I suspect it will require a great deal of out-of-the-box thinking, and we'll likely have to abandon some of our cherished capitalistic principles.

Don't be naive! We can absolutely turn back the clock on technological progress if necessary. If technology is driving humanity off a cliff, humans can and should limit technology. To do anything else is foolish and, in a word, insane.

As I see it, human beings are not lemmings. We are not living out our lives solely to implement technological progress. Therefore, we do not need to commit societal suicide because, "Ooohhhhh, shiny!" Technology is useful insomuch as it benefits society. If technology is not useful, or if it's counterproductive, we can most certainly say, "No."

That's an awfully good question.

My best guess -- there will be an extended period of whole-hog persecution of Democrats for, well, being Democrats, and Republicans will get a pass from the newly politicized FBI. Afterwards, I expect Republicans will dial it down a bit, lest it become too obvious that they're using law enforcement directly as political tool. If I were a Democrat, I'd plan for two years of sitting around with my thumb up my ass, because at this point I don't believe the Republicans will let Democrats stand in the way of any of the massive number of changes Republicans want to implement A.S.A.P.

However, given the hyper-partisan environment we're in now, I wouldn't want to lay money on which way things will ultimately go. It could be that Republicans find they actually like jailing political opponents, and that authoritarian rule by a single party is just what the doctor ordered. In that case, Americans can likely kiss democracy goodbye. I suspect many Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, would be happy to chuck democracy in the shitter right now, provided of course that their party is the one that retains power afterwards.

Perhaps you're simply too young to remember the reaction when Obama was elected eight years ago, but it wasn't pretty.

Four years later, in 2012, reactions from the right to Obama's second election as president hadn't changed much. Back then, Donald Trump tweated:

1. "This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"
2. "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"
3. "He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"
4. "Let's fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."

You didn't actually read through any of the data on those sites you linked to, huh? If you had, you might have discovered:

1. The voting dead turn-out to be just three individuals in Colorado, one of which administrators at the Secretary of State's office admit may have been due to a mistake by an election judge.
2. The list of 438 voter fraud convictions is across all 50 states, and some of those convictions go back to at least 1982. However, it does include Republican Charlie White, the former Indiana Secretary of State, who was convicted of voter fraud, -- among other crimes -- back in 2012.

Overall, the data you've cited actually supports what most experts are saying regarding voter fraud; not that voter fraud doesn't ever happen, but that it happens so infrequently that it's not affecting the results of elections.

Of course, if you look at the statistics behind recent voter ID laws, you'll see that these laws are aimed squarely at black voters, in an attempt to suppress the black voter in favor of white voters, who are more likely to vote Republican.

You didn't actually read any of those links, did you? If you had, you'd discover that that most of the recent chatter around the #AssassinateTrump hashtag, for example, is comments like this:

1. Hello @gov @twitter @Support, why are you allowing #AssassinateTrump to trend? Why are you not banning people who use it as a threat?

If you look backwards in time, you'll see that the earlier tweets including the same hashtag seem to have a more humorous than hurtful intent:

1. If @realDonaldTrump becomes president due to you retards im moving to canada! #sixhereicome #assassinatetrump

Finally, the Twitter user you've linked to, @maymaymx, isn't exactly a bleeding-heart liberal either, as evidenced by the actual contents of his tweets, like this one:

1. Make Liberals Irelevant Again

...or...

1. White liberals on Election Night: THIS IS THE END OF THE WOOORRRLLLDD!!! White liberals two days later: Man the anarchists are overreacting.

Perhaps it might be a good time to review your own biases before you start calling-out the folks at Twitter on theirs.

By your logic, I should be able to walk into my local McDonald's screaming, "Fuck 'em all, bubba!" over and over again while the staff do nothing, right? After all, asking me to stop screaming obscenities would be interfering with my free speech, wouldn't it?

How is this comment currently rated +5 Insightful?

Let's be clear on this -- there is no moral equivalency between far-right hate speech and the political left. It's like claiming Gandhi's philosophy and Hitler's philosophy were one and the same. It's crap. These things are not equally vile. Black Lives Matter has not called for 'white genocide'. Go look at their website if you want to know what they're about, but stop putting false words in their mouths.

Trying to make the case that Black Lives Matter, or Muslims, or Jews are no different than the neo-Nazis, or the Ku Klux Klan or skinheads, is just crazy. It's complete nonsense. Or possibly just makes you a out-and-out liar. I'm not buying that kind of bullshit, and I imagine no one else believes it either.

But there are some very important differences between posting hate speech on Twitter vs cake making:

Cake making generally occurs as some form of commerce. Over time, we've seen that allowing people to practice commercial discrimination based on factors such as color, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. typically results in poor outcomes for whomever is in the minority. For example, if I as a towns' one and only grocer refuse to do business with, say, left-handed Englishmen, it makes it difficult to impossible for left-handed Englishmen to live in my community. And once we've decided that it's not OK to discriminate against any particular group, over time it becomes more and more difficult to discriminate against other groups.

And don't forget that hate speech is, well, hate speech. It encourages people to take violent action, which isn't normally a positive or worthwhile trait for most societies. It's still illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded American movie theater, so American society as a whole already agrees that some forms of speech shouldn't be free. Expanding prohibited speech to include hate speech is certainly not without precedent, and given that Twitter isn't a government organization, I think they're within their rights to determine what type of speech they wish to allow on their platform.

I think you're missing the point.

White, blue collar voters in the Rust Belt aren't blaming technology for the decimation of the American middle class, nor are these people the kind of stereotypical redneck hillbillies you seem to be implying they are. Folks in red states have cell phones too you know, and computers work just as well in rural America as they do on the coasts.

But what's not working in rural America is rural Americans, and they're losing their jobs all over, not just in West Virginia coal mines. And these jobs aren't being replaced by technology; in most cases, jobs are getting shipped out of the country, to Mexico and elsewhere, because businesses can pay pennies on the dollar to workers in those countries versus what an American worker would make. Again, that has nothing to do with technology, but it is why white men and women in Wisconsin, Ohio and other formerly blue states voted for Trump by wide margins.

Globalization, free trade, NAFTA -- all of these bi-lateral international agreements aren't doing bupkis for the part of America where factories close and two-thirds of the town is out of work. Economists will tell you it's better to ship those jobs to Mexico and elsewhere because those places can make the same products for less money, and American consumers win with lower costs for goods on store shelves. But what the Rust Belts sees is that it doesn't matter if you can buy a pair of shoes at Walmart for $0.53 less if you don't have a job! And again, this is what's happening in all kinds of small towns all across America. When Hillary Clinton starts talking about trade agreements, all it does is piss-off people who already lost their job in the last round of trade deals. When Trump says he'll repeal NAFTA, white, rural America sees him as their champion.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Trump can bring back the lost mining or factory jobs; at least he says he'll try, which is far more than the establishment in either party has said for decades. And unless Facebook starts opening factories in rural America, and technology turns its engines of innovation towards helping to solve the middle-America employment problem, high tech just looks like another part of the problem, not part of a solution for the Unemployed States of America.

You know, this is the second or third time I recall seeing that very same JPEG linked, but with the names and images blacked-out, it's impossible to tell who said what. Are you claiming a staffer from the Democratic National Committee made those comments? How do I know those comments weren't originally from, say, a group of cross-dressing rodeo clowns?

If you're going to use online comments to make a point, you might want to choose comments you can attribute to someone we actually care to hear about. Online comments without attribution to who made those comments aren't really evidence of anything. 'Some guy' said 'some thing' doesn't matter much, and only serves to weaken your case.

Please explain how the media were not honest here. You realize, don't you, that it was the media, the New York Times as a matter of fact, which first broke the story on Secratary Clinton's use of a private email server. And it was that very same media which went on and on about Clinton's email issues, right up until the very end of the campaign. According to Media Matters, using data from the Tyndall Report, reporting of Hillary Clinton's email issues eclipsed all other reporting combined on any other issue (100 minutes on emails vs 32 minutes for issue-based reporting).

I'll make you a counter-deal -- if I can find an example of the media pointing out problems with "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor", you'll admit that there might be a problem with misleading news on Facebook, yes? Here we go:

Even back in 2009, ABC News, and FactCheck.org were asking tough questions about the Obama administrations' statements on health care reform. In 2013, Politifact awarded the claim, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as its 'Lie of the Year', and had been rating the claims that people would be able to keep their plans as 'half true' since at least August of 2009.

See? Easy. There are obviously other examples than the four I've linked above, but I assume I've made my point.

For you to say that the media wasn't covering the story about the Obama administration's statements on healthcare is simply not true, and it's a good example of exactly why many people, including myself, are concerned about misleading news on Facebook. Bandying about half truths and lies as if they were facts isn't going to help anyone, and if you really believe we should only listen to the biggest and most successful liars out there, than I have a couple of bridges and some fine, very nice land in Florida I'd like to sell you.