This is a major National Security issue and not sour grapes, as many here try to dismiss, ignore or deny the confirmed hacking by Russia specifically aimed to help Trump get elected. Such behavior I will simply label as reckless and not treasonous, though putting ideology before country come close.
Until there is a thorough investigation into whether Trump knew about or colluded a foreign powers attempt to undermine our democratic process, we cannot allow Trump to take the presidency. Looking at their comments to and about each other can now be seen in an entirely new light. Read below:

"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want," Trump said in an interview on Sunday with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanopoulos responded, in a reference to Crimea, which Putin took from Ukraine in early 2014.

At the end of 2015, Vladimir Putin lauded Trump's presidential campaign, calling him "an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it."

In response to Putin's compliments Trump said: "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."

Putin has called Trump a "very outstanding man" and "unquestionably talented."

When Russia continued its military buildup in Syria and Putin backed the country's President Bashar al-Assad in 2015, Trump declared the Russian leader earned an "A" in leadership.

Trump not only gave the Russian leader an "A," he also said Putin has been a better leader than US President Barack Obama. "He is really very much of a leader," Trump said of Putin. "The man has very strong control over his country. Now, it's a very different system, and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly in that system he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader."

At a national security forum in September, Trump explained his friendly relationship with Putin saying: "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him."

When asked about allegations that Putin orchestrated the deaths of his political opponents and journalists, Trump defended Putin: "I haven’t seen any evidence that he killed anybody."
After Trump won the election November 8, Putin sent the president-elect a telegram congratulating him on his victory.

Even if Trump did not know or collude with Putin, his ignorance of what Putin is and does should be enough to render him unfit to hold office.

This is funny! This same "warning" has been floating around for 1000's of years. Islam predates Christianity by several 1000 years, but in an effort to make Christianity the premier religion in the World, "warnings" were issued about the nefarious Islam and evil Muslims, to get support for war. Isn't that ironic? Christians accused Muslims of wanting a "one world religion", in order to gather support to - wipe out Islam making Christianity the "one world religion". I'm sure that isn't even remotely hypocritical, just a coincidence.

The truth is, Islam spends so much time at war with itself, that the rest of the world has little to fear from them. Bear in mind that the Islamic militant is hardly a religious zealot, they're a violence zealot, using religion as a pseudo justification for the violence they really love, adjusting and rewriting holy scriptures to compensate for their unholy appetites. In any case, which sect are we to worry about? Sunni, Shia, or one of the dozen other sects? The millions of Muslims are spread out in these sects, none of which will recognize the legitimacy of any other - and certainly won't work with them for world domination.

There is NOT a single "Nation of Islam", there are dozens, all of which are reluctant to, or outright refuse to, work with each other for ANY reason. Look at the mish mash of fighters seeking to kick ISIS out of Mosul and the squabbling that ensued before the attack could be launched, and you'll see a classic example of what I'm saying. So, the next time someone says "Muslims want to make Islam the religion of the world", just ask them "which Islamic sect?" - because there is no way on hell it's ALL of them. That would be like expecting Republicans and Democrats to work together for the good of the United States.

A video of a Fox News report on illegal immigration uncovers some shocking, jaw-dropping evidence of just what a difference voter fraud actually does make – all the way to the White House.

Faked absentee ballots in Troy, New York were used to literally steal elections. In Kentucky, 20 public officials stole elections by buying votes, spending $400,000 to buy 8,000 votes over several elections.

Evidence uncovered every kind of voter fraud, from illegal voting to tampering with voting machines, adding fake votes, individuals voting more than once and voting by non-US citizens. In Philadelphia, some areas received more votes than there were registered voters.

But in the most shocking discovery of all, three years after Obama was elected in 2008, voter fraud was discovered that actually helped put Barack Obama on the ballot. Enough fake signatures were entered on petitions in Indiana that allowed Obama’s name to be on the ballot in Indiana. Authorities said he would not have even qualified to be on the ballot in Indiana if not for the fake signatures.

WATCH!
http://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10154544020206336/

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!