New low? This is now the status quo. There is a constant attempt to silence the press and whitewash the news to promote a positive image of this shit show.
I'm fairly conservative , especially fiscally. I want immigration reform to happen. I do believe that international trade needs/needed to be renegotiated. But what this administration has caused me to realize is that the misogynistic, racist, fear mongering, anti-science, anti-free speech administration that we have in place isn't worth having; despite whatever gains we may make from it.
But the rush of democrats to make themselves the polar opposites of the republicans isn't doing them any favors either.

each side is looking for a fight right now. No matter what the topic is, they are fighting in a no-compromise fashion. The news is spreading this fear mongering and they won't be happy till there are people dead.

Are there really enough 80 year olds who remember violent communist revolutionaries for this to be effective fear mongering?

Oh religious fear mongering. Where would we be without you? OH RIGHT! A lot fucking further than we are now.

Demagogues love followers too.
It goes both ways.
Fear mongering however, always was tied to lies.

People need to adapt to the constant change of Climate evolution. Sounds like they need to move.

Good thing Trump let this false Fear monger go.

That was pretty underhanded... sneaking in some climate change fear-mongering in there.

i have to agree that when the election was nearing the end,and it was time to vote.the choice was pretty clear.

i never liked the "lesser of two evils" argument,but when faced with a choice of:

soft fascist,narcissistic used car salesman,who spoke in bombastic and racially charged rhetoric,but really said nothing.

or...

a war-mongering corporatist,who never saw a war she didn't want to send your kids to go die in,or a corporation she didn't want to extract donations from for political favors and who basically said nothing as well.except for 'well,at least i am not that THAT guy"--->points to trump.

i am still gonna say...go with the corporatist.

because in the end,at least on domestic policy,hillary would have been adequate.oh she would have signed the TPP,and fucked millions of american workers,and she would have most likely expanded the drone campaign,and continued with the american empires policy of "regime change",but she had/has the knowledge and capabilities to actual lead a government.

hillary knows how to politic,and understands how shit gets done in washinton,and things would have remained relatively unchanged here in america.maybe..maybe.... some incremental change due to the political pressure the sanders campaign brought.

so i get it,and maher is not exactly wrong per se",but i think he is missing the bigger picture that so many in the beltway have missed,and CONTINUE to miss,because they reside in their own,tiny and insulated bubble.

the american people were desperate for change,and they have been for decades.after obama's campaign of 2008,and his "hope and change" platform,which ignited the american people,only to see,not "hope and change" but rather "more of the same".

and what was hillary offering?
a new message or vision? a new path for america that would include everybody to blaze a new path of invention,creativity and imagination to create an america everyone could be proud of? and feel a part of?

nope..she was offering "more of the same".

well,americans had already had their fill of "more of the same".they had lost faith in a system that appeared to no longer represent them.so they chose the nuclear option for change.terrifying and horrifying change.

so go ahead and blame the "bernie bros".feel free to slap responsibility on those "uneducated and redneck hillbillies".cry and whine and point the finger at those liberals who refused to abandon their principles,and by all means bask in the glory of your own self-righteous moralizing,and condescendingly condemn anyone who voted for trump,or who refused to vote at all.

you can sit in a small room with everybody else who voted for hillary,and self-righteously smell each others farts and call it a rose,because you are obviously a better quality human being than the rest of us.

and by all means,refuse to examine the fact that hillary ran a shit campaign,and had no real message,vision or path to the future.ignore the corruption and blatant,and politically motivated shenanigans of the DNC.god forbid you experienced a moment of honesty.

is trump going to be a disaster of presidency?
well,it sure is shaping up to look that way isn't it?
but we have survived horrible presidents before,and we shall survive trump.

and on a positive note:
trump has brought many people out of their apathetic slumber,and they are scrutinizing everything he does with a fine toothed comb.the amount people who are becoming politically engaged is quite impressive.

there is nothing in our representative democracy quite as powerful as people gathering together to put pressure on our elected representatives.

town hall meetings,that used to be wastelands,are now being packed to over-flowing.with citizens calling out their representatives..to their FACE..on how unhappy they are.

so go ahead and ridicule those who voted for trump,but it is due to trump that so many have gotten off their couches and are taking it to their congressmen and senators.

just a non-controversial,and easily predicted side effect,when you put someone like trump in power.

man,the politics in my country is getting really fucking interesting!i cannot WAIT to see what happens in the next episode!

what do you guys think?
/end rant

*promote

$314 million for one bomb that does more damage to terrain than any enemies.

You could have dropped 1000 cluster bombs for the same price and done way more targeted damage, or 10000 JDAMS / Laser guided bombs.

This is all just Trumps ego. He wanted to show how serious he is, and nobody would let him drop a nuke, so they used his short attention span to dangle this MOAB in from of him to make him feel good.

"Yeah, yeah, it's the biggest one we have"

He's not even good at war mongering.

Fear mongering at it finest.

Good old liberal fear mongering Bullshit.

And now ... here's part two: Chief Executive Fear Mongerer

I can't wait for Jack White to sue him.

Most ridiculous, jingoistic, fear mongering Trump commercial ever.
America is strong, proud, and great today....and Trump wants to change all that.

To answer a few of the questions in the description.....
What agenda? Good question, it changes by the hour and depends on the audience, but clearly his agenda is to get more money and power over others...his lifelong goals.

Successful business dealings....only according to himself, and with absolutely zero proof he's not actually deep in debt. How many bankruptcies does it take to be labeled a poor businessman?
Egotistical narcissists like him always need more power, it's how he measures his value as a human....and yours. If you're powerless, you're also worthless to him.
He's never once proven himself, he bends over backwards to hide his actions, business dealings, and actual net worth. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out his net worth is a negative number.

Regressive policies are never a good thing, and it's all he's suggesting (but clearly he'll have no problem ignoring every thing he's said if he wins...he won't need you pleebs for another 4 years, and he'll just dupe you again then, it's apparently easy, just offer a scapegoat for their failures, add lies and anger, and stir well. It's working so far.)
If he wins, buy gold. The market will tank, and might not come back.

Some refugees arrived during the war, but not that many. Before that, Jews were about 8%of the population, so barely "significant".
Invaders came in mass soon afterwards, ignoring local laws and wishes, causing major problems, they didn't assimilate, they grabbed land, then power from the natives, and ended the peaceful coexistence that had lasted centuries before they invaded. The Nazis were long gone when they did this in about 1948, and not a factor at all then, and certainly not in 1974 when the U.N. suggested the two state solution (as you suggest), which might have worked if not for Israel's insistence on not moving or stopping expansionist "settlers" (read invaders) in Palestinian territory and supporting them with the military, and has been supported by Palestinians since the mid 70's (and publicly by their 'leaders' since 82), while Israel and the U.S. veto to this day, (and get upset when it's even mentioned internationally).

When you steal the land and push the locals out, it's not a surprise that their allies and neighbors come to their defense, I hope ours would, and I'm sure the European Jews wish their neighbors had.

It was an invasion by European Jewish people after the war was over (not refugees) with militarily superior allies that helped them and sold/gave them vastly superior weaponry.

Talk about revisionist history BS.

I continue to think them violent invaders, and horrifically racist genocidal ones at that.

Edit: It's anti-Zionist hate mongering, btw. The religion has nothing to do with it.

I've heard this revisionist history BS so many times now I just can't stand it anymore. There was no magical 'gifting' of Palestinian land to invading European Jews. That's a completely baseless self justification for Middle Eastern anti-jewish hate mongering.

Jewish people were a significant percentage of the population in Palestine long before the Nazi's and their ilk started making Europe look unpleasant. They were Palestinians themselves, not invaders. Both Arab and Jewish Palestinians lived side by side in Palestine for a long, long time before the 1940s. Clearly, come the 1940's there was a large influx of Jewish people from Europe. Calling them 'invaders' versus refugees though seems an easy call given the holocaust and Nazi occupation of the whole of Europe. Still, you insist on calling them invaders. I don't have words for how disgusting that is.

So, in the mid 1940's we have a Palestine loaded with Jewish and Arab Palestinians, plus a good number of Jewish refugees. The tensions between those groups escalates into a full on civil war. Not an invasion, but a civil war between Jewish and Arab palestinians where the only group remotely fitting the 'invader' role are holocaust survivor refugees now in a country were there is AGAIN a war against them on the basis of being Jews. I'm not sure I think they are as callously the aggressor. What is more, upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess, the Jewish Palestinians immediately accepted. The Arab Palestinians though appealed to the Arab league, and many of the leaders within it that stood alongside the Nazi's pontificating solutions to 'the problem'. So now a fledgling independent Jewish state spent it's first day receiving a join declaration of war upon it by all it's neighbouring countries that each out numbered it grossly. I again can't but see the Israeli fighting as defensive. In fact, I must insist it was an existential fight that, should they have lost, would have us discussing the second and even worse holocaust of the European Jews that fled to Palestine.

But I know it's popular today among pseudo intellectual circles to just declare Israel an invasion and occupation by a foreign army of vastly militarily superior super jews. It's a fantasy though, and it's one that was scripted up by hateful racists to justify their hatred. None of that says anything about white-washing Israeli policies in the decades following. If you want to call them invaders from the start though you are speaking a truly horrific set of lies.