Politics

[FaultyMario]

People who didn't understand what they were reading.



I thought Randy Savage was dead.

[Freude am Fahren]

Also whats this bullshit of CNN tracking down the reddit user who made the gif of their logo getting beat up by trump at WWE and making him apologize or they'll release his actual name. btw they have 'reserved the right' to release his name in the future if they so choose.

That's not what happened. Yes they tracked him down. Dumb waste of time, IMO, but not unusual at all. And they didn't make him apologize, he did it himself, as he has said. There was no agreement or anything regarding his name, which is what the latter part means.

It's all very stupid, really.

[Drachen596]

it is stupid. It also puts CNN in poor light. There wasn't really any reason to track the guy down in the first place.
reserving the right to release his name at a later date if they choose also makes them look bad.

[Freude am Fahren]

Thing is there's no real reason CNN shouldn't have published his name as part of a story in the first place. The only times names are normally withheld, are with minors, or with confidential sources. This guy was the subject of the story. They felt bad for the guy and decided to not identify him when he apologized. That's where they went wrong, IMO. Either publish his name or don't even run the story.

The article was no more blackmail than the original Trump Tweet was a call for violence.

[Drachen596]

Ive seen a few places say the guy was 15.

Was it even worth a story in the first place though?

[Tom Servo]

I've seen a few places re-iterate that the guy is an adult, and that the "15" thing isn't true.

[G'day Mate]

Heh, nobody knows anything any more. It's all bullshit and outrage - people believe what they want and cry "fake" at things they don't like.

[Tom Servo]

My guess:

President retweets something with a gif/meme that came from reddit where someone just slapped the CNN logo over someone's face. This would not be remotely notable as this happens on Reddit all the time, except that the president rewteeted it.

CNN reporter looks into it, clicks on username, looks at other things user has posted. Sees image showing all jewish employees of CNN with stars of david next to their heads and some anti-semetic language. Sees other posts to various less-than-savory subreddits. Thinks there may actually be a story here.

Anonymous user, like many anonymous users on the internet, overestimates anonymity. Gets contacted by CNN for comment, is unhappy that real life identity has been found out.

CNN reporter decides to run with it, says that they are keeping the source anonymous, words it in an extremely threatening way.

CNN reporter and redditor both state that it was not meant/perceived as a threat. Anyone who doesn't like CNN jumps on it, and the rumor train starts rolling hard.

FWIW, I think all cable news is bad and part of the reason we seem to have this weird ADD/sensationalist view of the news now. The 24 hour news cycle. Somehow you have channels devoted to 24 hour news, yet never any actual in depth reporting, it's just sound bite after sound bite after sound bite.

I don't like CNN, but while I think they'd be stupid enough to word their stance on the anonymity poorly, I don't think they'd be stupid enough to publicly threaten someone with blackmail/extortion. My personal Occam's razor slides on the side of "incompetent, not malicious nor incompetent to the point where they wouldn't think it's a bad idea to be publicly malicious."

My other side is acutely aware of how the Trump administration is repeatedly employing the old dictator trick of trying to discredit the news media, so I'm likely to defend it despite its flaws.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Didn't follow this story fully and don't intend to.

Can't help wondering why these things are even newsworthy...

Hey POTUS, it's very unpresidential to show your dick like that! We're so ashamed and you are a disgrace... Yet, we keep on retweeting and talk about his dick 24/7. Sigh...

[FaultyMario]

Man, first the cool job now the cool post... Whatever you're having, i want three for here and one to go.

[neanderthal]

Someone, somewhere here, can't remember, said something along the lines that Clinton should have gone around and sold her ideas to the people. I responded that she did. That she had information on her website, and statements on campaign stops, but the press just parroted Trump daily.

Well, a factoid just brought to my attention that Clinton had 38 issues/ policies on her website, described in 112000 words, while Trump had 7 issues/ polices with 9000 words.


I still don't buy the notion that she needed to self her "brand" or be a better salesperson of herself. Trump straight up campaigned on repealing Obamacare. And building the wall. And denouncing Black Lives Matter. Etc. He didn't come out and say anything that was blatantly anti LGBT but he picked Pence as his running mate, so ... that spoke volumes. And the sheep lapped it up.

[neanderthal]

Trump supporters crying foul and NPRs tweeting the Declaration of Independence.

Damn Snowflakes.

[thesameguy]

I still don't buy the notion that she needed to self her "brand" or be a better salesperson of herself.

Yet she lost. The only thing politicians have to do is sell themselves, and she did an inferior job to Trump. That's not a guess. That's a fact. She lost. She failed. She did it wrong.

You can blame the sheep, but you can't change the sheep. More to the point, your mentality, your outlook - disparaging huge portions of the population - is exactly why Clinton lost. She failed to address a large portion of the population in an acceptable manner and they turned to Trump. The way you win is not by not being self righteous and not talking down to people and not blaming them when you fail to say things they like. That is how you lose. That's how Clinton lost.

Until the Democrats pull their heads out of their collective asses and realize the country isn't made up of people who "get it" and people who have problems and concerns that don't just get regulated away and put together an inclusive message they are going to leave themselves vulnerable to people like Trump who campaign on an easy to digest message. They don't win by continually beating the same drum and believing eventually everyone will come around. That is how they continue to lose. The way they win is by recognizing the situation is different than they previously imagined, and putting together a plan and figuring out how everyone gets to play in the future they imagine.

You can agree or disagree, but the fact of the matter is the Democratic party is failing and despite massive infighting the Republican party is winning. If you want bank on the same drum plan, more power to you.

[Drachen596]

Someone, somewhere here, can't remember, said something along the lines that Clinton should have gone around and sold her ideas to the people. I responded that she did. That she had information on her website, and statements on campaign stops, but the press just parroted Trump daily.

Well, a factoid just brought to my attention that Clinton had 38 issues/ policies on her website, described in 112000 words, while Trump had 7 issues/ polices with 9000 words.


I still don't buy the notion that she needed to self her "brand" or be a better salesperson of herself. Trump straight up campaigned on repealing Obamacare. And building the wall. And denouncing Black Lives Matter. Etc. He didn't come out and say anything that was blatantly anti LGBT but he picked Pence as his running mate, so ... that spoke volumes. And the sheep lapped it up.

What topic did she run on and campaign with repeatedly? You just listed about 4 things he campaigned with. Can you name the same for Hilary? I can't name anything she ran with other than things that attempted to attack Trump.

Honestly the only things I can remember from her campaign were things that people said was pandering. Hot sauce in her purse while at a black radio station being the main one I can recall.

[neanderthal]

What topic did she run on and campaign with repeatedly? You just listed about 4 things he campaigned with. Can you name the same for Hilary? I can't name anything she ran with other than things that attempted to attack Trump.

Honestly the only things I can remember from her campaign were things that people said was pandering. Hot sauce in her purse while at a black radio station being the main one I can recall.


She ran on jobs. She ran on education. She ran on tax reform. She ran on climate change. She ran on healthcare. LGBT rights. Early childhood education. Housing. Paid family leave.

Those are right off the top of my head. She had probably the most comprehensive campaign platform in American Presidential history and it all got drowned out by the boorish rantings of an unqualified dolt.

[neanderthal]

Yet she lost. The only thing politicians have to do is sell themselves, and she did an inferior job to Trump. That's not a guess. That's a fact. She lost. She failed. She did it wrong.

You can blame the sheep, but you can't change the sheep. More to the point, your mentality, your outlook - disparaging huge portions of the population - is exactly why Clinton lost. She failed to address a large portion of the population in an acceptable manner and they turned to Trump. The way you win is not by not being self righteous and not talking down to people and not blaming them when you fail to say things they like. That is how you lose. That's how Clinton lost.

Until the Democrats pull their heads out of their collective asses and realize the country isn't made up of people who "get it" and people who have problems and concerns that don't just get regulated away and put together an inclusive message they are going to leave themselves vulnerable to people like Trump who campaign on an easy to digest message. They don't win by continually beating the same drum and believing eventually everyone will come around. That is how they continue to lose. The way they win is by recognizing the situation is different than they previously imagined, and putting together a plan and figuring out how everyone gets to play in the future they imagine.

You can agree or disagree, but the fact of the matter is the Democratic party is failing and despite massive infighting the Republican party is winning. If you want bank on the same drum plan, more power to you.

The Republican party is winning because of gerrymandering. Because of Citizens United. Because of the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the resulting rise of talk radio and opinion news. Etc etc etc.
The are winning because the voter is less and less informed and more and more overwhelmed by information and deception when its time to vote. They are winning because they keep cutting funds for education, by cutting taxes, which cuts the general budget which means cuts everywhere including education. They are winning because people think "trickle down" economic theory is an actual thing that works.

Florida just made legal to challenge anything in the school curriculum ffs.

They're winning because they've been systematically destroying America, bit by tiny bit, with their agenda, and it suits their wealthy benefactors, and the low information voter because its packaged in tiny little sound bites. So much so that they (GOP) can trumpet "market forces" as a response to a question about how their health care is better than Obamacare, and nobody has the intellectual wherewithal to say "how in the fuck does that make any sense" because they've been educated by a subpar educational system and been averted from using their common sense. They're winning because our journalists, our truth tellers, the 4th estate who's independence and freedom are enshrined in the constitution, no longer have to have a sharp mind and a keen intellect, but a good appearance and an ability to read a teleprompter.

I can keep going. And going. And going. but i'm not that stupid rabbit in that stupid commercial.

We used to aspire to intelligence. We used to respect it. We no longer do. And that's why they're winning.


And before you start with me "disparaging huge portions of the population" in that little rant, which, quite frankly, I was, when you vote repeatedly against your own interests, and don't learn from it, I get to call you dumb.

This (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/) link was telling. There are similar links looking at the election results vs economic output etc. but i'm not bothered to post them.


The way I see it, when Hillary spoke on education, needed throughout the country, we all agree, Donnie said "she's calling y'all dumb" and they responded very positively. Which is quite clever, by half, yet quite telling.

[drew]

The diehard Trump base will never change its mind about him, until his/GOP's policies start affecting them personally.

Like, medicaid cuts, resulting in rural hospitals being shut down, and/or wholly un-affordable insurance premiums.

They don't give a damn about the fact that it's ultimately their money being given to the ultra-wealthy in the tax cuts.

If, and I mean if, the GOP "health care" bill gets passed, you may actually see some dissent from them.

Until then, all he has to do is keep spouting off his distractions about fake news and women bleeding, and they don't give a fuck, because their guy won. That's all that matters.

Sadly, I think they'll get their "reward" for that soon enough.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Hmm..., according to Neanderthal's link, so it's just the dumbass Americans who ended up voting for Trump. So what happened 4 or 8 years ago? Did Obama messed with our education system to cause the sudden dumb down of the people? Or was Obama the dumber candidate compared to the GOP ones?

Excuses excuses... I hope DNC is not in control by folks like Neanderthal or author of that link cause they'll never win another election again because they are just too smart and too good for the country.

[21Kid]

FWIW, I think all cable news is bad and part of the reason we seem to have this weird ADD/sensationalist view of the news now. The 24 hour news cycle. Somehow you have channels devoted to 24 hour news, yet never any actual in depth reporting, it's just sound bite after sound bite after sound bite.idiocracy




Yet she lost. The only thing politicians have to do is sell themselves, and she did an inferior job to Trump. That's not a guess. That's a fact. She lost. She failed. She did it wrong.

You can blame the sheep, but you can't change the sheep. More to the point, your mentality, your outlook - disparaging huge portions of the population - is exactly why Clinton lost. She failed to address a large portion of the population in an acceptable manner and they turned to Trump. The way you win is not by not being self righteous and not talking down to people and not blaming them when you fail to say things they like. That is how you lose. That's how Clinton lost.

Until the Democrats pull their heads out of their collective asses and realize the country isn't made up of people who "get it" and people who have problems and concerns that don't just get regulated away and put together an inclusive message they are going to leave themselves vulnerable to people like Trump who campaign on an easy to digest message. They don't win by continually beating the same drum and believing eventually everyone will come around. That is how they continue to lose. The way they win is by recognizing the situation is different than they previously imagined, and putting together a plan and figuring out how everyone gets to play in the future they imagine.

You can agree or disagree, but the fact of the matter is the Democratic party is failing and despite massive infighting the Republican party is winning. If you want bank on the same drum plan, more power to you.The Republican party is winning because of gerrymandering. Because of Citizens United. Because of the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the resulting rise of talk radio and opinion news. Etc etc etc.
The are winning because the voter is less and less informed and more and more overwhelmed by information and deception when its time to vote. They are winning because they keep cutting funds for education, by cutting taxes, which cuts the general budget which means cuts everywhere including education. They are winning because people think "trickle down" economic theory is an actual thing that works.

Florida just made legal to challenge anything in the school curriculum ffs.

They're winning because they've been systematically destroying America, bit by tiny bit, with their agenda, and it suits their wealthy benefactors, and the low information voter because its packaged in tiny little sound bites. So much so that they (GOP) can trumpet "market forces" as a response to a question about how their health care is better than Obamacare, and nobody has the intellectual wherewithal to say "how in the fuck does that make any sense" because they've been educated by a subpar educational system and been averted from using their common sense. They're winning because our journalists, our truth tellers, the 4th estate who's independence and freedom are enshrined in the constitution, no longer have to have a sharp mind and a keen intellect, but a good appearance and an ability to read a teleprompter.

I can keep going. And going. And going. but i'm not that stupid rabbit in that stupid commercial.She did have 3 million more votes than he did. But, the Republicans play(rig) the system, which is the problem. Democrats don't want to drop to their level, and are getting steamrolled because of it.

[neanderthal]

The diehard Trump base will never change its mind about him, until his/GOP's policies start affecting them personally.

Like, medicaid cuts, resulting in rural hospitals being shut down, and/or wholly un-affordable insurance premiums.

They don't give a damn about the fact that it's ultimately their money being given to the ultra-wealthy in the tax cuts.

If, and I mean if, the GOP "health care" bill gets passed, you may actually see some dissent from them.

Until then, all he has to do is keep spouting off his distractions about fake news and women bleeding, and they don't give a fuck, because their guy won. That's all that matters.

Sadly, I think they'll get their "reward" for that soon enough.

Which is exactly why I wish there was a way that people would be forced to live under the system/ politician they voted for. Let them have their "small government," lower taxes, coal jobs, rah rah, and guns everywhere.

[neanderthal]

idiocracy


She did have 3 million more votes than he did. But, the Republicans play(rig) the system, which is the problem. Democrats don't want to drop to their level, and are getting steamrolled because of it.

This.

[Crazed_Insanity]

One can claimed GOP gerrymandered the district to win the congress, but certainly nobody rigged the electoral college other than the founders of the nation.

Game rules, however unfair, were set long ago. DNC lost the game with their superior holier than thou attitude. Yeah, nothing is wrong with us, so it's time to blame it on the electoral college, GOP and the dumbass americans. Surely Hillary is one awesome candidate, it's just so unbelievable that she lost. Whatever the reason, we just know it's not her fault. We have statistical data to back that up! Dumbass americans did it to themselves with all the trouble we're experiencing. Please save us DNC!!! Don't you guys know what you're doing? Aren't you supposed to be smarter than the GOP? How come you guys can't ever rigged stuff in your favor?

[thesameguy]

This is all so tinfoil hat.

If the Republicans have rigged the system - top to bottom with donors, media, redistricting, etc. - how did Obama win? Twice? Is the proposition that all of this, or even the critical bits that flipped the system, occurred while he was on watch? I don't know, I'm asking.

if the system is rigged, and it's no longer possible for Democrats to win elections without "dropping to their level," what choice is there? Continue trying and flailing? Or go ahead and drop? Again, I don't know, I'm asking.

If you believe that the system is rigged, that the only way to play the game is to cheat, and that Americans are dumb you can either:

1. Assert righteousness until you're blue in the face and hope a bunch of yelling and angry words sway people
2. Change your tactics
3. Give up

That's it. You choose.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes. Choose wisely.

Anyway, not hoping DNC to ever change. The silverlining is that someday people will get sick of Trump, just as people got sick of W... and things will swing back. If DNC learns the lessons, they can possibly hold on to the top office longer. But chances are, things will swing back to stupid again... and they'll conveniently blame the stupid or the racists for it... again.

[neanderthal]

dude, that is a specious argument and you know it.

Obama won because he got a lot of people out to come out and vote. People who don't normally care about politics voted because he was the first minority candidate with an actual shot. Not some fringe candidate like Jesse running as an independent or whatever.

The voting population is not a binary thing where X are conseratives and Y are liberals only. Sure there are x conservatives, and y liberals in the population, but there are Z undecideds, and W can't be bothereds, and V green party/ billi voters, and U i'd love to vote but i'm an ex felon and so on and so on and so on.

The fact is that the conservatives vote consistently. That's not up for argument. It's everybody else that doesn't vote as consistently that allowed Trump to win. And it's their failure to vote consistently in the many preceding elections that allowed a system of "democracy" to end up being so rigged, slanted and jerrymandered.

[thesameguy]

I think it's unwise to get myopic about Trump. Trump is probably still the lesser of the Republican evils. We'll lose face in the world stage but it'll be temporary... the world is still a business, and while doing business with Trump may not make sense, when he gets replaced in four or eight years the business will return. Small businesses can't afford to hold a grudge, countries certainly can't. We will lose some ground domestically - stupid budget decisions, stupid environment decisions, stupid social decisions - but any of the other Republicans would have likely made the same decisions guided by the same lobbies, relationships, and moral compasses. The advantage we have with Trump is his inability to focus on anything, his unpredictability, and his "punch back so hard he hits himself" tendencies. He is making no friends, and is in fact a very powerful wedge between rank-and-file Republicans who will follow him regardless and what I would broadly call self-guided Republicans like McCain who will generally make decisions for themselves. He has a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court and they can't agree with each other on what to fuck up or how. If the president was someone who could compromise or see reason or follow logic they'd probably all have fallen in line by now and would be getting things done. It's pretty super that they're not. And can't.

In any case, he's not going anywhere. There isn't going to be an impeachment, and I feel like the Democrats are being god damned idiots pretending like they're going to get him on some sort of Regulation 121 bullshit. It's just more Have you seen the other guys (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/340732-dems-try-new-slogan-have-you-seen-the-other-guys) nonsense. Even Trump didn't win by harping on how bad the Democrats were. He won by promising to kick out and keep out the illegals, rejecting climate science, and fearing God. Of course he disparaged Hillary, but that wasn't his secret sauce. His secret sauce was appealing to human fear. Admittedly, fear is easy to appeal to, sadly that shtick is taken, but hopefully the DNC can cook up something else that actually supports them rather than attempts to demean the competition. I don't know what that looks like, I understand the inherent difficulties in selling an agenda that is financially, socially, and religiously expensive - no matter how beneficial the outcome - but I'd hope that people with more education and more experience than I have can concoct it. If they can't, we're definitely screwed. My vote, or the things that would get my vote, are kicking lobbies out of Washington and streamlining the bureaucracy, starting with welfare systems (SSI, Medicare, etc.). I'd love to hear about that.

Speaking of, one great thing about Trump and all his crazy is that he is demonstrating how unreliable the Federal government is and how little control is actually he has. He is forcing states and even local governments to take action in the absence of Federal direction. That could turn out to be great for everyone, even if there is some short term pain. Maybe as California tries to work on universal healthcare, South Texas changes immigration policies, Philadelphia works to protect the environment, etc. we can change the landscape from the bottom up rather than the top down. Maybe as the tests work or fail we can refine and validate models for the entire country. Maybe next time we have to put a president in power the voters will have benefitted from some of these policies in material ways, and when that candidate says "Repeal ACA" people will understand exactly what that means, and exactly why that's bad.

Glass half full? I don't know. But I reject the idea that anything approaching 49% of Americans are stupid. Misinformed or misled? Sure. Different priorities and concerns? Absolutely. But not stupid. They're not idiots. A lack of understanding is an opportunity to education and inform, not a reason to discount and ridicule.

[thesameguy]

dude, that is a specious argument and you know it.

Obama won because he got a lot of people out to come out and vote. People who don't normally care about politics voted because he was the first minority candidate with an actual shot. Not some fringe candidate like Jesse running as an independent or whatever.

The voting population is not a binary thing where X are conseratives and Y are liberals only. Sure there are x conservatives, and y liberals in the population, but there are Z undecideds, and W can't be bothereds, and V green party/ billi voters, and U i'd love to vote but i'm an ex felon and so on and so on and so on.

The fact is that the conservatives vote consistently. That's not up for argument. It's everybody else that doesn't vote as consistently that allowed Trump to win. And it's their failure to vote consistently in the many preceding elections that allowed a system of "democracy" to end up being so rigged, slanted and jerrymandered.

If conservatives vote consistently - and I'm not sure whether you mean conservatives vote at all, or vote conservatively - how come liberals don't? What motivation is lacking? What education is lacking?

It seems like you are contradicting yourself and I don't think you know it. If Obama got people to come out and vote, why couldn't Hillary? You think a black president got black (or maybe minority) voters to come out just because he was black? How come Hillary couldn't get women to come out, just because she was a woman? I think that's pretty fucking prejudiced, but a fair argument. How can we get minority voters to come back out? Why couldn't Hillary accomplish that? If she couldn't, why did we nominate her?

You're saying Hillary was sabotaged and that Obama benefitted from being black and that liberal voters are gerrymandered into unwinning districts. All three? So white people won't get minority voters, women won't vote on sex lines, and liberals have insufficient voting power in general, and the conservative media/donor structure is a nearly insurmountable force for Republicans? What does that mean? We can only have male black presidents now?

I think you are drawing extremely generalized solutions about complex systems that don't entirely agree with each other... or, alternatively, create a ruleset that is both limiting and obvious and it should be easy to work. I hear that you're upset, and rightfully so, but what's your solution? How would you encourage a voter base that is apparently only motivated enough to come out for black men? Maybe that's what we do, I'm down with it. Who would you nominate? Who, in your mind, has a shot?

[21Kid]

:shrug:

Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in the Country
According to a new poll, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America. The Harvard-Harris survey, found 57 percent of Americans view the Vermont senator favorably.
Among certain demographics, the progressive politician’s ratings are even higher: 80 percent of Democratic voters, 73 percent of registered black voters, and 68 percent of registered Hispanic voters view Sanders favorably.
This isn’t a marked change from prior polling. In late 2016, Sanders was also viewed as the lawmaker with the highest favorability ratings, earning approval from more than 50 percent of the electorate.


FOX NEWS POLL: Bernie Sanders remains the most popular politician in the US
As of March 15, 43% of surveyed voters approve of Trump's performance, while 51% disapprove.
Sen. Bernie Sanders received a rating of 61% to 32%.


Everyone loves Bernie Sanders. Except, it seems, the Democratic party
If you look at the numbers, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America – and it’s not even close. Yet bizarrely, the Democratic party – out of power across the country and increasingly irrelevant – still refuses to embrace him and his message. It’s increasingly clear they do so at their own peril.
And he’s even more popular among the vaunted “independents”, where he is at a mind boggling +41.


BERNIE SANDERS IS MORE POPULAR THAN TRUMP IN EUROPE, TOO
Multiple polls have shown Sen. Bernie Sanders to be by some distance the most popular political figure in the United States and certainly more liked than President Donald Trump, who continues to be beset by plummeting approval ratings. But it also appears clear that Sanders is far more popular than the president in Europe.

Sanders, meanwhile, has long been popular in Europe. In the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton, he won more than 60 percent of the vote in Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom.

[thesameguy]

Man, thank you for digging that up. I had no doubt it was true. The issue is not apathetic voters, the issue is candidates voters are apathetic about.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. As long as it's still legal, I mean.

Hillary Clinton is the Pontiac Aztek of politics. She seemed good on paper, but inadequate fucks were given. I'm not sure if that makes Bernie the Buick Rendezvous or not.

[thesameguy]

That post caused me to google this:

https://www.google.com/#q=clinton+independent+voter&spf=1499375558950

Watching the slide of independent voters from Clinton to Trump in the headliners is interesting.

This is a little outdated:

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/party-identification/

but still largely relevant.

Point being, the country is fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans and Independents. It seems that ultimately (and as expected) those voters got split between Trump and Clinton, judging by the narrow margins. Given the large margins that Bernie had purely amongst Independent voters, it definitely seems the DNC backed the losing horse, and we have Trump not because of voter apathy but the poor decisions made by the DNC. That assumes, of course, that nobody who identifies as Democrat would have voted for Trump and nobody who identifies as Republican would have voted for Sanders. I think that's a fair assumption, simply because that race is extremely polarized. The Clinton vs. Trump race, however, is far less polarizing. Witness all the post-election interviews of people who voted for Trump, but were then dismayed by him actually acting on his craziness.

https://politicalwire.com/2017/03/05/trump-losing-11-supporters/

11% - that's about 20,000,000 people. If Clinton had reached them, she would have won by a large margin. She didn't reach them. It's impossible to know whether her lack of reach was a result of a lack of effort (as I believe) or influence from other sources (Koch, Russia, whatever) but it's immaterial. She didn't reach them. She failed at her task.

It sucks we got Trump, but all the evidence suggests it was lack of reach, and she is the only one responsible for her inability there.

[Freude am Fahren]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19875614_10106855214986062_1932472188584789887_n.j pg?oh=998ef0a5d9f5c01ed2ceac853e4e8669&oe=59CF275D

[thesameguy]

The advantage we have with Trump is his inability to focus on anything, his unpredictability, and his "punch back so hard he hits himself" tendencies. He is making no friends, and is in fact a very powerful wedge between rank-and-file Republicans who will follow him regardless and what I would broadly call self-guided Republicans like McCain who will generally make decisions for themselves. He has a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court and they can't agree with each other on what to fuck up or how. If the president was someone who could compromise or see reason or follow logic they'd probably all have fallen in line by now and would be getting things done. It's pretty super that they're not. And can't.

Like this:

Analysis | One reason the GOP health bill is a mess: No one thought Trump would win
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-one-reason-the-gop-health-bill-is-a-mess-no-one-thought-trump-would-win/ar-BBDTZip?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Tom Servo]

Dear leader posted this about his experience at the G20 summit:


Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!

Few notes...

- Podesta hack was not the DNC hack. They were two separate incidents.
- Podesta was not in charge of the DNC.
- CIA is not involved in either investigation.
- No they aren't.

[21Kid]

Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what the truth is... 90% of Republicans will believe anything Trump says anyway.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD5BTwHXcAAEvf7.jpg

[Crazed_Insanity]

I guess besides bragging about grabbing kitty cats, they have nothing else to talk about other than yesterday's fake news...

[FaultyMario]

What the fuck are you smoking Billi?

[Tom Servo]

I think he was referring to Trump tweeting that everyone's busy talking about Podesta not turning over an email server he didn't own to the CIA, while alluding to the 'ol "Grab 'em by the pussy" line. If I'm right, I'm going to go in for a frontal lobotomy because I do not like that any part of my brain can think like that.

[thesameguy]

Really? It made perfect sense to me. Maybe you need to wrap in Colin Farrell's interview?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49601/colin-farrell/

[Tom Servo]

Sarah Palin just tweeted out this:


Trump Gives Speech to the People of Poland, Says 14 Words That Leave Americans Stunned

Which linked to the follow article on Young Conservatives website:

http://www.youngcons.com/while-overseas-trump-hails-populist-poland-declares-west-must-defend-civilization-and-faith/?ref=FacebookPost

That article makes no mention of "14" or "fourteen". I didn't notice any phrases 14 words long (though I have to admit I didn't count them all). Of course, 14 words along with a talk about "western values" triumphing over all those unwashed masses does make one think of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

I mean...this isn't even subtle.

EDIT: Also, fuck her for posting clickbait headlines.

EDIT 2: I found a couple of 14 word sentences. None that I would necessary characterize as leaving much of anybody "stunned", but I guess it's possible.

[thesameguy]

Maybe it's like a word search? Maybe it's like the first letter of each word combines into a 14 word sentence?

[Tom Servo]

I feel like it's not super likely she'd come up with a puzzle she wouldn't have a hope of solving.

[Tom Servo]

Then again, I did make a Zork-style video game when I was about 7 years old that had you start in a completely dark room and, if you typed anything other than "grab banana", you immediately died. So, yeah, maybe not so much on that theory.

[Freude am Fahren]

The article says the 14 words are “Let us all fight like the Poles. For family, freedom, for country, for God.” (ETA: looks like an update, maybe after your post)

Did he not say that? I'm not really sure this is a story. I think some are giving Palin too much credit.

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, that update was added after my post. I know I'm definitely not the only person to equate some of the content of that speech with the better known 14 words unprompted, but it's also entirely possible that this is a non issue.

That said, I'm pretty sure the people who are a big fan of that better known 14 words sure heard a dog whistle in it, intended or not.

[Freude am Fahren]

True.

[FaultyMario]

Really? It made perfect sense to me. Maybe you need to wrap in Colin Farrell's interview?


Tokin is unhealthy enough as it is. And, somehow, i am of the belief that essential oil applications are no true high.

[thesameguy]

All true, but everyone needs a vice.

[FaultyMario]

Vice's paper is more porous, so... maybe?

[thesameguy]

it's not quantity, it's quality.

[Tom Servo]

Well, for what it's worth, Donald Trump Jr. just unwittingly admitted he met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer under the pretense that she had information that would hurt Clinton: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/donald-trump-jr-s-stunningly-incriminating-statement-to-the-new-york-times/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.0682a01c8947

Then again, nothing else has managed to convince people that this guy, who now says he trusts Putin more than our own intelligence agencies and wants to put our cybersecurity in Putin's hands, is borderline treasonous, so whatevs.

[Leon]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/94553539/us-reels-after-australian-journalists-searing-assessment-of-donald-trump


That's a bit of a dismantling of Trump by an Aussie reporter.

[thesameguy]

Is that really a problem or crime though? I think in order for it to be, you'd have to prove that Russian created a scenario that damaged Clinton. Just having possession of information and sharing it can't be remotely illegal, can it?

[Tom Servo]

I can't answer that (that's what Mueller is for), but it's yet another in a long string of them lying until caught. To me, it establishes a pattern of colluding with a government that, until recently, has had an adversarial relationship with us, and lying about it until the evidence is too strong to lie about.

If there wasn't anything to hide, why the hell do they keep hiding these things until some news source breaks it open?

[thesameguy]

Hilariously, this conversation unfolds a lot like the Clinton email server conversation, so in the interest of fairness I will suggest that the Trumps are hiding their conversations with Russians because it's a witch hunt and they are trying to limit the details and control the narrative.

That said, I think Clinton knowingly broke the law when she set up her email server and at the least showed callous disregard for information safety and at worst did it so she could negotiate shady deals without any government oversight. And I think Trump absolutely colluded with the Russians and at the least showed callous disregard for the sanctity of our highest election and at worst participated in a system designed to disrupt it.

[Tom Servo]

Oh, for fuck's sake, we've been through this. Clinton did not break the law. She was not a member of the military, as secretary of state she was a civilian. She may have violated company policy, but she didn't break the law by routing emails through a private server so she could get them on her phone.

[thesameguy]

On a purely technical level, that makes zero sense so you'll understand why I am dubious of the intent. But, you are certainly allowed to believe whatever you'd like. It's in the past, it doesn't matter now.

[Tom Servo]

I honestly didn't understand that answer in the slightest. Nonetheless, if you equate funneling email through a private server to colluding with a country we have sanctions against that may have interfered with elections, I'm going to disagree that they are equal even if the counter-claims around it have similar wording.

In the end, I disagree with your statement that she "knowingly broke the law" as the FBI disagrees that she broke the law, so I find it hard to believe that she knowingly did something that she apparently didn't do.

[Freude am Fahren]

Aiding a foreign state to influence our election is treason. That's a pretty serious crime, if I recall. If DT Jr. went into the meeting knowing that he would be given information from Russia to use during the election (obviously gained through spycraft/hacking), how is that not treason?

[thesameguy]

I was not equating the two actions in terms of cost or severity, only pointing out that it's interesting that when there's a conspiracy theory about someone people like it's a very different reaction to when there is a conspiracy theory don't like. Just an observation.

I didn't and don't want to have the email server conversation. It was a simile and nothing more. You are entitled to believe whatever you'd like to believe about it.

[thesameguy]

Aiding a foreign state to influence our election is treason. That's a pretty serious crime, if I recall. If DT Jr. went into the meeting knowing that he would be given information from Russia to use during the election (obviously gained through spycraft/hacking), how is that not treason?

What is that obviously? Why could it not just be information read or seen or passed along? I'm not saying it wasn't nefarious, but a Russian talking to an American is not illegal, a Russian talking to an American about an election isn't illegal, and a Russian talking to an American about facts that could help that American isn't illegal. You can't assume the helpful facts were illicitly gained (or created).

[Tom Servo]

Hey, you're the one who wanted to equate it by saying that Hillary knowingly broke the law when, as far as anyone can tell, she didn't. You can say all day long you think she's shady, but you specifically argued that she knowingly broke the law when the FBI disagrees with you.

[thesameguy]

Man, all I can do is encourage you is to reread. Maybe start with FOIA or NARA and work outwards. If your argument is she's ignorant and didn't know the law, well, fine, I'll grant you the technicality. But being ignorant is almost worst than being deceitful if you're the freaking Secretary of State.

[Freude am Fahren]

Okay, fair enough. Change "obviously" to "almost certainly"

[G'day Mate]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/94553539/us-reels-after-australian-journalists-searing-assessment-of-donald-trump


That's a bit of a dismantling of Trump by an Aussie reporter.

:up:

Although if I choose to not like it then fake news.

[Tom Servo]

Re this article: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/


Comey said the FBI found evidence of “potential violations” of federal law, but such cases are generally not prosecuted. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.

It’s clear, though, that she violated department policies. Comey said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

Department policies != the law.

[thesameguy]

Hey, whatever. You read that however you want to read that.

[FaultyMario]

a Russian talking to an American about facts that could help that American isn't illegal.

You did leave out the part about electoral politics. Hold it there.

If you go up one level, most governments have laws preventing foreign nationals from participating in politics in their country. That's even at the public debate level, which they may participate in, but they can't cross the line onto discussing electoral politics, much less present an opinion about a participant in electoral competitions. There's also laws against the use of resources from foreign nationals in elections. But this goes beyond, a government official works by using government funds, this isn't "a Russian", it's someone operating with foreign government funds not acting for individual reasons but on state policy. This proves the Russian state used funds to participate in American electoral contests which, I think is at least unlawful.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Sometimes I really don't understand why politics can become so heated and single sided..., guys, remember TSG actually voted for Hillary! I'm the one who actually gave up on Hillary and gave my vote to Jill Stein! take it easy on him!

Another thing people are so hung up on is whether if something is 'lawful'. Is it because secular folks recognizes no bibles so law books is something they hang on to? Violation of a LAW is like an amazingly huge deal! Such as having sex with a person who's 1 day under age is a huge taboo, rape of whatever. However, if you do the same girl on her legal birthday then it's good job dude because no laws are violated! :up:

Anyway, I get what TSG is saying, but I'm not going to bother getting into it... for obvious reasons. ;)

Bottomline is that Trump is a much better playing and pushing legal limits to advance himself whether in business or in politics. At least he's better enough to beat Hillary..., one can only hope that Trump will soon push too hard to land himself in jail so that the nightmare can stop.

[FaultyMario]

Dude, Donnie's not good at pushing anything.

He's a corrupt businessman with lots of friends that bail him out.
He's an inept politician with the support of a corrupt party that is looking the other way; while the other party, they're just as inept at being opposition and they still haven't finished fighting between them.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, reality is that Hillary was less than 'not good' because she lost.

IMHO, neither should be on the ballot... it's not like we don't have any other viable candidate available, it's just that the democratic establishment thought she should be next in-line. DNC could be right had the Republican establishment got things under control on their side..., too bad Donnie grabbed the cuntry by her pussy cat.

[FaultyMario]

Billy, spend some time reading the classics (http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/parsnk/2014-15/pol321-spring15/the%20power%20elite.pdf)!
It's a relatively short article, homes, and it should deepen your understanding of the power struggles of the elites, and how the democratic process has been hijacked. The more you know, the best you can defend your raza and your familia.


The American elite is not composed of representative men whose conduct and character constitute models for American imitation and aspiration. There is no set of men with whom members of the mass public can rightfully and gladly identify. In this fundamental sense, America is indeed without leaders. Yet such is the nature of the mass public's morally cynical and politically unspecified distrust that it is readily drained off without real political effect. That this is so, after the men and events of the last thirty years, is further proof of the extreme difficulty of finding and of using in America today the political means of sanity for morally sane objectives

[thesameguy]

You did leave out the part about electoral politics. Hold it there.

If you go up one level, most governments have laws preventing foreign nationals from participating in politics in their country. That's even at the public debate level, which they may participate in, but they can't cross the line onto discussing electoral politics, much less present an opinion about a participant in electoral competitions. There's also laws against the use of resources from foreign nationals in elections. But this goes beyond, a government official works by using government funds, this isn't "a Russian", it's someone operating with foreign government funds not acting for individual reasons but on state policy. This proves the Russian state used funds to participate in American electoral contests which, I think is at least unlawful.

I absolutely do not disagree with you - that is absolutely on the table.

BUT, Junior didn't meet with a state official, he met with "a Kremlin connected lawyer." Natalia Veselnitskaya is a private Russian citizen, not a state employee. I believe she is essentially a lobbyist. It's unknown whether he even knew she was a Russian citizen or that she was connected with the Russian government (as a lobbyist). All he ostensibly knew was that someone promised him damaging information about Clinton. I'll readily agree it's very murky, and I'll happily admit I want him and his entire family to go down in flames, and I'll even acknowledge there is a lot of smoke so there probably has to be a fire. But, based on the known facts, we've got nothing. Yet. All we know for certain is that Junior agreed to meet a person with a Russian-sounding last name who offered dirt on Clinton. That's not illegal, or even approaching illegal. Until we establish what he actually knew, or what he did if he found out, it's just more smoke. I have my opinions, but that's all they are.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Billy, spend some time reading the classics (http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/parsnk/2014-15/pol321-spring15/the%20power%20elite.pdf)!
It's a relatively short article, homes, and it should deepen your understanding of the power struggles of the elites, and how the democratic process has been hijacked. The more you know, the best you can defend your raza and your familia.

Mario, it's a good read and couldn't agree with it more..., but I'm a bit confused why you wanted me to read that? Just an FYI or did you think my comment implies that I believe Donnie "deserves" to be where he is today because he's better at playing the system than Hillary? I think I'm pretty aware that most of our politicians and our CEOs do not represent average Americans... The powerful and the rich in US are now pretty corrupted behind closed doors while pretending to be just and fair out in the open.

This is why I like Sanders and believe the country needs somebody like Sanders. Hillary just won't do..., unless people really enjoy status quo... then I'm sure she'll do a fine job.

[21Kid]

BUT HIS EMAILS!!!!!!:mad:!!!!!

But, seriously though. He went to a meeting specifically to get information from someone connected to a foreign govt, that he thought would help his father/hurt Hillary.
(Read the Emails on Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Meeting (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html))

This headline sums up my feelings on it.
If There Was No Collusion with Russia, It Wasn’t for Lack of Trying (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/if-there-wasnt-collusion-it-wasnt-for-lack-of-trying/533070/)

[MR2 Fan]

I have a feeling something big is about to go down regarding Trump-Russia....BIG, because Trump treasons the BIGGEST

....maybe this was the big thing :D

[thesameguy]

BUT HIS EMAILS!!!!!!:mad:!!!!!

But, seriously though. He went to a meeting specifically to get information from someone connected to a foreign govt, that he thought would help his father/hurt Hillary.

Totally, but that is not illegal. On either side.


(Read the Emails on Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Meeting (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html))

This headline sums up my feelings on it.

It's my opinion as well, but failing to break into a house even with the intent of robbing it isn't a B&E...

[21Kid]

There's no law for attempted collusion? :erm:

There's laws for attempted ...almost everything else.


Well, he didn't actually kill anyone, so it's not murder. :p

[thesameguy]

Prosecuting a thought crime is extremely difficult. I don't think I've ever seen someone prosecuted for reading a website and buying a gun... you've at least gotta wave the gun in someone's face to get an attempted murder. There are conspiracy charges, of course, but you need to have a lot of evidence - I mean, like a written out plan, to get that sort of conviction.

Meeting with an individual who is not a government official is not illegal. Meeting with someone who is not a government official who has damaging information about another party is not illegal. It's only illegal if that person created the information illegally, or obtained it illegally, or knew its origin is illegal. Proving any of those things happened is difficult, and it appears in this case no such information actually traded hands anyway.

Look, I'm not defending anyone on the Trump team - regardless of whether they colluded with the Russians or not they ran a slimy campaign and they're slimy, reprehensible people. But there is a problem when "good people" are willing to create or ignore details just to get their way. Unless there is evidence that Junior knowingly received stolen information or you can somehow prove he intended to (which is essentially impossible) what did he do wrong? [Unfortunately,] nothing. If he'd texted "OMG illegal 411 on Hills cumming my way 2nite!!!" I'd feel differently.

FWIW, and Swervo cover your eyes, this is exactly what Hillary did with her email. Comey acknowledged "there were potential violations" but that they did not investigate because "such matters are rarely prosecuted." Proving Clinton knowingly broke the law or knowingly covered it up is very, very difficult. It's proving thought crime. Again, to quote Comey, "the FBI only prosecutes clear cut cases" and her email server was not clear cut. A lack of investigation is not an exoneration.

There wasn't sufficient evidence to righteously nail Clinton, and there isn't sufficient evidence to nail Junior. It's just more smoke, just more hints at a fire. But it's not the fire.

[21Kid]

But...


His...


EMAILS!!!!!

[thesameguy]

I did. Twice. Are you reading something I am not?

[21Kid]

ZOMG...

EMAILS!!!



;)

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes, there's a lot of smoke!

Depends on which side you're on, you end up interpreting the smoke different.

If you see smoke on your side, you tend to think it's no biggie... false alarm.

If you're on the otherside, you'd cry FIRE!!!

Just that so far with either Hillary or Trump, we just don't have enough to call for the fire department yet.

[thesameguy]

ZOMG...

EMAILS!!!

;)

OIC.

Bear in mind, working in the legal field, every damned day I have to explain to people how email works, and that emails which include case-winning magic bullets mostly only exist on TV. So, so sick of that conversation.

[FaultyMario]

Killjoy!

[thesameguy]

Go with what you know.

[Tom Servo]

Just saw this on Twitter.



I...worked on this story for a year...and...he just...he tweeted it out.

[Tom Servo]

Politifact on whether collusion could be a crime: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/

The fact that on one hand it's being argued that Hillary's private email server is illegal because of potential illegal acts concerning the use of it while at the same time being argued that collusion is not illegal via ignoring the potential illegal acts concerning it is not lost on me.

[thesameguy]

If that was aimed at me, can you please indicate where I suggested collusion (or even, for that matter, coordination) is absolutely not a crime?

I think you are very eager to assert a point, less eager to digest the words.

[Tom Servo]

Is that really a problem or crime though? I think in order for it to be, you'd have to prove that Russian created a scenario that damaged Clinton. Just having possession of information and sharing it can't be remotely illegal, can it?

That's certainly how I took that.

And yes. The point I'm making is that when you say:


I think Clinton knowingly broke the law when she set up her email server

She didn't because it wasn't against the law. There may be things that happened with that email server later that were against the law, but the very premise was wrong. Just like how the actual collusion itself is not against the law, but things related to it may very well be.

[Crazed_Insanity]

People have their own political bias. If you don't share the same value, eventually you'll just become another Billi regardless of how rational, logical, eloquent you are... Of course I know I'm not thesameguy, but I get what his talking about.

Anyway, point is that we had two lousy candidates who shouldn't even be on the ballot to begin with..., it's really pointless to fight over them. Whatever people wish to believe about their candidate, just let it be.

[thesameguy]

That's certainly how I took that.

Well, your Politifact link completely supports what I said, so.......


She didn't because it wasn't against the law. There may be things that happened with that email server later that were against the law, but the very premise was wrong. Just like how the actual collusion itself is not against the law, but things related to it may very well be.

If you are seriously arguing semantics, that I suggested "making an email server" is illegal rather than "setting up an email server with the intent of transmitting Government work and/or classified information so as to avoid detection and logging and in the process operated outside of the security of a government network" is illegal, then, well you win. Well done.

Edit: Or for clarity "using an existing server with the intent of transmitting Government work and/or classified information so as to avoid detection and logging and in the process operated outside of the security of a government network" is illegal

The point being the discussion is about what she did with an email server, not that email servers legally exist. I think we can all agree email servers exist legally.

[thesameguy]

And now I feel like I need to explain this again:

We know Clinton had an email server, we know 100+ documents considered classified went across it. We know that is against department policy. It may be illegal, Comey didn't weigh in - see the bit about "clear cut." It's not "clear cut" because we don't know is what else went across that server, because the only thing We the People have to work with is data that was preserved and subsequently turned over. That is PRECISELY the problem with running government business across a private server, because government controls for data preservation are not in place. The systems that help the government comply with FOIA and NARA don't work when it's not a government server. It's only possible to prosecute the crime when We the People can prove information that went across that server was subject to FOIA and NARA, which we can't do, because again, those systems don't work on private servers. Since we don't know what went across the server and we can't prove she knowingly used the system to evade NARA, it is difficult to prosecute any wrongdoing. This is pretty much the inmates running the asylum. The suspect being investigated for misuse of data is in charge of producing that data*. Do you understand the problem? If We the People could produce all the email that went across the server over ten years, maybe then we'd have a crime to prosecute.

In the same way, we know the Trump team met with Russians. We know with a fair degree of certainty that at times they talked about the election. What we don't know is what they talked about, whether foreign governments employed systems to manipulate the election, and whether they communicated information about those systems or information those systems produced to Trump's team. The only way we can get that information is if Trump's team or the foreign governments come forward with that information. The suspects being investigated for misuse of information hold the keys to that information. Does that make sense? If We the People could produce the contents of those conversations, maybe then we'd have a crime to prosecute.

Clinton = Trump
Email Server = Russians
Classified or Protected Emails = Election Manipulating Efforts
Intentional Evasion Government Oversight = Collusion

Unless Clinton/Trump produces all the information communicated across the Email Server/Russians, then We the People have no access to details about the Emails/Efforts and it's difficult to prove Evasion/Collusion so a prosecution is difficult to build. Without the actual information communicated, it's all hearsay and supposition.

And, AGAIN: I think Clinton intentionally evaded government oversight, and I think Trump colluded with the Russians. I can't prove either opinion, and I doubt the government will have any better success with Trump than it did with Clinton.





* Unrelated, but important to note, is that the email server came to light when she was being investigated for Benghazi, and government email searches for her communications came up empty. Why? Because she used a private server. So in order to investigate her in the context of Benghazi, she was required to produce her own incriminating emails. I'm not making any commentary about Benghazi, but you do understand the inherent difficulty of saying "Hey, can you give us that email where you incriminate yourself because we don't have access to it?" That situation is exactly what NARA is supposed to prevent, why not using government servers is a problem, and why someone who would choose to do that is already a little suspect. "No, officer, I did not hit that pedestrian. I'd prove it to you, but wouldn't you know it my dash cam wasn't working for that 47 seconds." Yep, nothing to see there. I have worked on hundreds of email and document productions at this point, forensically investigated servers. You know what? You don't find what they don't want you to find. If you control the data, you control the story.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yep!

Bottom line is that we had shady candidates who shouldn't be on ballots. However, each side is willing to defend candidate of their side to the death and willing to kill candidate of the other side. I just don't get why...

Can we agree that they're both crap? Okay maybe Hillary crap isn't as stinky, but she's still crappy.

[drew]

One can't help but notice the irony.

[FaultyMario]

I'll say it again. It's going to be imposible to get him thru the Russians. But he did the same with the Mexicans, and they are more inept/have worse controls on the data.

[novicius]

I'll say it again. It's going to be imposible to get Congress to get him thru the Russians.
FTFY.

[FaultyMario]

Yeah, that too.

But the Democrats haven't finished with each other yet, who knows if they'll have time to present an attractive platform in 11, 12 months.

[novicius]

Yeah that ain't happening. :lol:

[thesameguy]

I'll say it again. It's going to be imposible to get him thru the Russians. But he did the same with the Mexicans, and they are more inept/have worse controls on the data.

Very much agree - the only way through this is if some Russian somewhere flips and has something in writing. Even accepting a government connected lawyer produced official government documents as directed by the government, you'd essentially have to prove the information contained in those documents was created through government-sponsored activities and probably that those activities were illegal. If Putin himself provided a Donald Trump Sr. an official document that said "Hillary Clinton is 69 years old" sure, you'd have a letter of the law crime (foreign government providing information which could be used to influence an election) nobody would prosecute that. The nature of that information is absolutely critical - there needs to be proof the information was unique, gathered by the foreign power, and still probably that it was gathered illicitly, rather than a concoction of creative Google searches.

That said, you might be able to prosecute Junior right now purely on the basis of collusion (arguing he intended to receive stolen information to influence an election) but that's a rough case (proving intent) and it certainly wouldn't affect Trump Senior.

I spent the last eight hours listening to NPR... this was a popular topic. A lot of angry Democrats for sure, but nobody suggesting they can prove Trump Senior's collusion, only that there is a strong case for his associates. The Republicans, of course, are waving people away with a combination of "nothing to see here" and "Look at the Ukranians!"

Also a popular topic was "neo liberal" vs "the left" (eg, Clinton vs Sanders) and all the sentiments these groups carry about the election. Interesting stuff, an author whose name I don't recall at the moment suggested that the neoliberals are as a group convinced Hillary was robbed by "the Russians," whereas the left tends to believe that she represented the establishment, and Trump won because he ran on a platform of anti-establishment (even though it was lies). What's funny about that, to me, is that the neoliberals are saying "Clinton lost, because the Russians stole votes from her" whereas the left is saying "Clinton lost because we didn't vote for her." One is a guess (which may or may not be true), whereas one is a fact. I guess that makes me "the left," because I didn't vote for her because she represented the establishment. :lol: Maybe it was the Russians... but maybe it was me!!!

[Crazed_Insanity]

Wait, I thought you begrudgingly voted for her?

I'm the true left. I was just not going to vote for her no matter what.

Donald almost had me until he showed disrespect for kitty cats. Glad I also didn't vote for him because otherwise I might consider suicide now.

[thesameguy]

"Me" was just "the left."

Honestly, if was certain she was going to lose I would have liked her to lose by a lot.. like a crushing defeat. The problem with the barely defeat is that I think it sends the message her campaign needed tweaking, when really I would hope for a complete rework.

Water under the bridge...

[Jason]

A year away from midterm elections and we're still talking about Hilary.

Democrats are going to get absolutely killed in 2018.

[Crazed_Insanity]

She couldn't possibly lose by a lot considering her opponent... and sad thing is that she actually lost by winning the popular vote. This further divided the country I think.

Anyway, without an apparent 'next-in-line', hopefully the DNC will come up with somebody more worthy to lead the nation. But the more important thing is for them to be able to take over congress in the future. White House alone is insufficient.

Hope Bernie will still be in good health in 4 more years and hope more like him will run for congress.

[thesameguy]

A year away from midterm elections and we're still talking about Hilary.

Democrats are going to get absolutely killed in 2018.

Yeah...

That link I posted a few days ago about the Republicans being scattered right now because they didn't expect Trump to win (and thus had no plan) should be a warning to the Democrats. Like, get a plan together. Stop wasting energy on what did happen, fighting a battle that has no chance and/or no real upside (lose Trump, get Pence, how is that a victory?) and focus on getting a unifying agenda together and then positioning people in the public eye who will execute it. All of this really illustrates so painfully what politics in general and Washington in particular has become - a big flabby white octagon where septuagenarians fight each other for the Crown of Righteousness. There were some allusions to this on an NPR show last night (at like 5am) that was taking calls... one of the callers was a female (if that's important) college student who was brought into a campus facebook group where far-left people apparently spend their time attacking Trump. She said she liked to be a part of the group, but was dismayed that all these activists weren't accomplishing anything, and that she hoped our country's leadership would stop squabbling, squash all the infighting, and lead. The analyst they were interviewing agreed - the loss of leadership, not having people we trust all moving in the same direction and bringing us with them, is possibly the core of this problem. We need our leadership to lead, not trample each other trying to prove their own relevance. The infighting sets a stupid tone for the population.

Trump lied through his teeth, but he sure did convince a lot of people he was going to lead them to a better place. The Democrats can't even put together a façade of leadership. I guess maybe that's not entirely fair... neither can the Republicans, which is why DJT took their lunch money last year.

I really enjoyed Hillary's recent smart-ass response about healthcare (http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-gop-twitter-obamacare-healthcare-bcra-2017-7). Given where we are, it seems like more Democrats tweeting about their great ideas for the future might be helpful. It certainly wouldn't be worse than wasting time with idiot articles of impeachment. :smh:

[Crazed_Insanity]

I can't believe that after winning the congress and White House, the republicans are still so 'humble' that they could ask Hillary how to fix this nation's problem... Do they want to hire Obama back as consultant too? Gee...

[thesameguy]

Haha... I thought the same thing. The fact they thought it was a good idea to make fun of her after she's totally out of the picture shows a complete lack of judgment, the fact that she fired back with an actual answer is just more egg on their faces. Stupid fuckers.

[Yw-slayer]

They probably thought it was red meat to their fanbase as it would be taunting/gloating/bashing/chest-thumping.

[thesameguy]

Classic misdirection.... gone wrong! :D

[G'day Mate]

What exactly are you guys referring to? I've missed something ...

[Crazed_Insanity]

Business insider link in TSGs post dude!

[G'day Mate]

Ah ok didn't spot it there. This thread has too many words in it.

[mk]

A year away from midterm elections and we're still talking about Hilary.

Democrats are going to get absolutely killed in 2018.
So?

Current representatives, re-elected or not, are not going to lose their silver spoons anytime soon.

Let America reap what they sow.

[21Kid]

A year away from midterm elections and we're still talking about Hilary.

Democrats are going to get absolutely killed in 2018.

Hillary 2020!!! WOOO!!!!!! :hard:

[thesameguy]

We will need to get out shit together before Kid Rock makes a run at it, that's for sure.

[Kchrpm]

I'm not worried.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/341269-campaign-committee-for-dwayne-the-rock-johnson-filed-with-fec

[21Kid]

She said she liked to be a part of the group, but was dismayed that all these activists weren't accomplishing anything, and that she hoped our country's leadership would stop squabbling, squash all the infighting, and lead. The analyst they were interviewing agreed - the loss of leadership, not having people we trust all moving in the same direction and bringing us with them, is possibly the core of this problem. We need our leadership to lead, not trample each other trying to prove their own relevance. The infighting sets a stupid tone for the population.Meh... IDK. Hillary tried to avoid throwing mud. And she had the highest honesty rating out of any recent candidate for office. IMO she got shouted over, drowned out, disregarded by the news because of the constant shitshow that was the Trump campaign. I never really believed the "any news is good news" mantra, until then. :smh: I suppose it can be said that she didn't lead enough people to vote. But, IMO she had enough leadership qualities.

I hate to keep bringing it up... But Bernie Sanders was, and still is trying to lead from the ground level. He's been encouraging his supporters to run for local office themselves and has even endorsed quite a few of them.

[thesameguy]

Meh... IDK. Hillary tried to avoid throwing mud. And she had the highest honesty rating out of any recent candidate for office. IMO she got shouted over, drowned out, disregarded by the news because of the constant shitshow that was the Trump campaign. I never really believed the "any news is good news" mantra, until then. :smh: I suppose it can be said that she didn't lead enough people to vote. But, IMO she had enough leadership qualities.

I hate to keep bringing it up... But Bernie Sanders was, and still is trying to lead from the ground level. He's been encouraging his supporters to run for local office themselves and has even endorsed quite a few of them.

I broadly agree with this, except that there is pretty much nothing anyone can say that will convince me Trump's "bad press" is what caused Hillary's loss. No argument his shitshow drowned her out - that definitely happened - but (perhaps errantly) I think more highly of the general intellect on the left, and I think people who might have voted for her were paying attention to her over and above the headlines. I know I was. I think her defeat came for a variety of reasons - some self-inflicted, some external, some the result of lies around or at her. I paid attention, and I didn't like her. As above, "the left" didn't like her because she wasn't left enough. A lot of moderates didn't like her because she was too establishment. All the shenanigans during the primaries (Wasserman-Schultz, etc.) didn't help. Whether she was in on it or not doesn't matter, a lot of people walked away believing that Clinton sabotaged a teammate. That was brutal, it turned a lot of "if I have to" people into "no fucking way" people.

She really had a lot of factors working against her, and despite running a pretty clean campaign she couldn't rise above them.

Before the primaries I read an analyst's projection and he suggested early on if it came down to Clinton vs. Trump that Trump would win because Clinton could not reach the leftists and could not reach the independents. That actually turned out to be true. The Sanders vs Trump, Clinton vs. Cruz, etc, all ended up differently in his calculations... he said, and of course retrospectively I have to agree, that Clinton vs Trump was a sealed deal, Clinton wasn't going to win. She could not win the left OR the independent vote, and Trump would be able to claim one of them.

Sanders is acting in the right way. I'm not sure he could actually win an election, and if he did it'd get UGLY fast. Obama was a Kenyan Muslim, I don't know what they'd cook up about Sanders. But, he is anti-establishment and by all measures he seems to be in politics for the right reasons. I can't really say that about many people. The Democrats do need someone who stands up to scrutiny in the same way. I want more social programs, but what I need is a government I trust. I don't believe Clinton's government would be one I could trust. To be clear, I don't think Obama's was one I could trust either - my issues aren't uniquely leveled at Clinton. The candidate "we" need is one who we have complete confidence will work tirelessly to return to the government to the people.

[21Kid]

It baffles me that the idea of a candidate for the people seems to be such a stretch.

And that more people would rather "screw the other guy" than try to improve the situation for everyone. :(

[Jason]

I still check in on various conservative forums/subreddits from time to time, and a lot of their reaction to current shit is "eh, I don't really like it, but it makes liberals cry, so I'm happy"

[Crazed_Insanity]

That's what happens when society is this polarized.

Can you guys honestly say that you're not happy to see conservatives cry? Or maybe not happy, but would you care if a fellow American who is a super conservative asshole fall and hurt himself?

Actually, you probably wouldn't know because each side is living in their own bubbles so each side won't even know what's going on in the other bubble.

[Tom Servo]

Well, when you put the "asshole" qualifier in, no, I wouldn't. That person was an asshole, and I'm glad they fell.

[thesameguy]

Can you guys honestly say that you're not happy to see conservatives cry? Or maybe not happy, but would you care if a fellow American who is a super conservative asshole fall and hurt himself?

You're right - that is indicative of the problem.

But, I would care. I do care. I'll accept an inconvenience, but I don't want to see people hurt. If someone doesn't like you - for you, or because of your views - and then you are unsympathetic to their plight how do you think that is going to affect the relationship? Improve it? I feel that we, as a people, need to care. When someone has a problem it's an opportunity to reach out to them, start a dialog, maybe learn something about each other, and walk away a little closer together. When that hardcore tea partier falls in front of you and you just step over him, not only have you missed that opportunity but you've also just reinforced their negative opinion about you. It's not just unproductive, it's counter-productive.

We live in a fixed space, with each other. There is no getting around that. People are always going to disagree with each other on superficial and fundamental levels. Nobody is going to win. The way we get places is by taking turns, and knowing that even if you disagree with where I am taking you, or how I am taking you, that if push comes to shove I've got your back and you can count on me not stepping over you. The opposite of that - the worry you will get stepped over, it where the fear comes from. The fear that people like Trump zeroed in on, and preyed upon. We gotta get rid of the fear.

[Tom Servo]

Phrasing, people.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DErkJfXXsAAjP-s.jpg:large

[thesameguy]

Phrasing, people.

And, I am pretty sure that isn't his own in his hand, but some mistakes are easier to make than others. :p

[Crazed_Insanity]

Well, when you put the "asshole" qualifier in, no, I wouldn't. That person was an asshole, and I'm glad they fell.

We all have assholes you know? ;)

Again, I'm in agreement with the samedamnguy!

[Kchrpm]

Having an asshole and being an asshole are very different. Don't use an optional descriptor in the situation you created from whole cloth just to deny its importance when someone else uses it in their decision making.

[Tom Servo]

What Kchrpm said. I'd also say I'd be happy to see an ultra liberal asshole fall down, because I am a fan of schadenfreude when it comes to assholes.

[Crazed_Insanity]

The whole point I was trying to make is that it shouldn't even be a decision making process. If somebody's hurt, we should all care. At the moment, I feel that most folks would gladly step over folks of the other side... because each side is currently seeing the other side as purely assholes.

Whether it's literal assholes or being assholes, nobody can be 100% asshole all the time. We're just 100% human beings. People just need to learn to love... even our enemies. But of course, I know, even Christians are not following Jesus' teaching in this regard... reality is that human beings are assholes who not only wouldn't listen to Jesus but willing to kill Jesus. However, the bright and hopeful side is that God loves and believes in us... even when we tried to kill him.

The ideology we should all have is just to love others and don't even allow yourself the choice to NOT do that..., that'd be our only path forward. We don't have to agree with one another, you don't even have to like that asshole, but the least we can do should be to love one another.... or not be glad to see some assholes fall. Once you allow that in your heart and mind, the world will inevitably slide down deeper into a stinkier hole.

[Tom Servo]

I would argue that literal assholes can, in fact, be 100% asshole all the time. As far as I know, mine has never been anything other than that. Well, YW inferred that it might have been a phone case at some point in the Android thread, but he's gotta prove it first.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Dude, com'on. Can you reach 100% speed of light? Can you achieve 100% absolute zero temperature? Can you really get 100% pure gold?

The world we live in is grey and in color, not 100% black or 100% white or 100% of any specific color. You don't need me to teach that to you do ya? ;)

[Tom Servo]

Can I be a human being 100% of the time? Can I spend 100% of my time within the Earth's atmosphere?

I feel very comfortable in saying that my asshole is, 100% of the time, a literal asshole. It has never been a tuba or a fin whale or a mariachi band. It does not become a being made of pure light that rains blessings down upon the world while I sleep (though that would be kinda cool).

Heck, I'd say that the term "literal" actually defines it as 100% that.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Indeed you are human being 100% of the time, just like other assholes and like me! We also share earth's atmosphere 100% of the time together!!! Ever our literal assholes remain assholes 100% of the time! See how much we have in common? ;)

Anyway, of course we will react differently when our wives, kids, pets, strangers, political opposing assholes fall down and hurt themselves. My point is that although we don't have to like or love everyone the same, but we should remind ourselves to at least care. Our current political polarization and terrorism/extremism are the end result of us ceasing to care for fellow human beings.

[Freude am Fahren]

https://i.giphy.com/media/NlR0RF1v972Mw/source.gif

[Tom Servo]

I hope that somebody just reads my previous post who also has Billi on mute and chooses not to look at the context. I like that one out of context.

[21Kid]

Great... Now I was to go read his post. :| Thanks Swervo.

[Jason]

That's what happens when society is this polarized.

Can you guys honestly say that you're not happy to see conservatives cry? Or maybe not happy, but would you care if a fellow American who is a super conservative asshole fall and hurt himself?

Actually, you probably wouldn't know because each side is living in their own bubbles so each side won't even know what's going on in the other bubble.
My base belief is in equal rights and equal opportunity, so no, I wouldn't be happy to see laws/regulations pushed that hurt anyone in a meaningful manner. At worst, I guess I'd be happy to see higher tax rates for the rich, but that doesn't Impact them in any meaningful way (ie it doesn't take food/shelter away from them, just money out of investment accounts).

[FaultyMario]

The disgrace of Kushner would be the misfortune of Videgaray, to whom in the spring of 2016, a banker who visited him regularly when he was Treasury Secretary, offered to bring him closer to candidate Trump. Videgaray consulted with President Enrique Peña Nieto, who authorized him to initiate contacts. A businessman well-known to Francisco Guzman, head of the Office of the Presidency, who had a relationship with Kushner, finalized the first meeting, in summer in a hotel in New York, where he met secretly with Kushner and Ivanka Trump. The possibility of Trump's visit to Mexico during the presidential campaign was presented then, and discussed in the candidate's team in August.

On the 30th of that month, Trump visited Los Pinos, which caused the deepest political crisis of the six years, when the [Mexican] cabinet was broken by the invitation. Peña Nieto maintained his support to Videgaray, and only changed days later when, at the suggestion of White House officials, he asked him to resign. Peña Nieto thought he had saved a confrontation with President Barack Obama and with whom he thought would win the election, Hillary Clinton. As soon as Trump won, Peña Nieto reactivated Videgaray, who traveled to New York in November for another meeting with Kushner, and laid the foundations of the bilateral relationship.

I think discussing campaign issues and planning political events with the Minister of the Treasury of a foreign country is closer to illegality than talking to a Russian lawyer.

[Kchrpm]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/americas-future-is-texas


The redistricting had a revolutionary effect. Today, the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives includes twenty-five Republicans and eleven Democrats—a far more conservative profile than the political demography of the state. The Austin metropolitan area, the heart of the Texas left, was divvied up into six congressional districts, with city residents a minority in each. All but one of these districts are now held by Republicans. I’m currently represented by Roger Williams, a conservative automobile dealer from Weatherford, two hundred miles north of Austin. Another Republican congressman, Lamar Smith, lives in San Antonio, but his district includes—and neutralizes—the liberal area surrounding the University of Texas at Austin. Smith, a member of the Tea Party Caucus, in Washington, denies that human activity affects global warming. He heads the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which oversees nasa, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Lloyd Doggett is the only Democrat representing the Austin area, and his district runs along I-35, from East Austin to East San Antonio, scooping up as many Democrats as possible in one basket.

Texas’s redistricting process has since been replicated in statehouses around the country, creating congressional districts that are practically immune to challenge and giving Republicans an impregnable edge in Washington. “Texas became a model for how to get control,” Craddick told me.

[MR2 Fan]

:smh:

[neanderthal]

BUT HER EMAILS!!!!!!:mad:!!!!!

But, seriously though. He went to a meeting specifically to get information from someone connected to a foreign govt, that he thought would help his father/hurt Hillary.
(Read the Emails on Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Meeting (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html))

This headline sums up my feelings on it.
If There Was No Collusion with Russia, It Wasn’t for Lack of Trying (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/if-there-wasnt-collusion-it-wasnt-for-lack-of-trying/533070/)

FTFY.

[neanderthal]

Can I be a human being 100% of the time? Can I spend 100% of my time within the Earth's atmosphere?

I feel very comfortable in saying that my asshole is, 100% of the time, a literal asshole. It has never been a tuba or a fin whale or a mariachi band. It does not become a being made of pure light that rains blessings down upon the world while I sleep (though that would be kinda cool).

Heck, I'd say that the term "literal" actually defines it as 100% that.


I hope that somebody just reads my previous post who also has Billi on mute and chooses not to look at the context. I like that one out of context.

That you clarified that the arsehole post was in relation to a billi post says a lot.

I read your post, because I didn't see billis, since he's blocked, and i immediately knew that the influence of billi was hovering around your post. It was just too random, too basic in explaining what your arsehole is, too out there to be almost anyone else'. It's a sad commentary

[neanderthal]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/americas-future-is-texas

but democrats lost because they couldn't speak to the issues of the people... or because of her emails... or something.

Meanwhile this third world bullshit (this is exactly how Mugabe has stayed in power in Zimbabwe, redistricting the electoral borders into large "pizza slices" where the liberal pointy end of the pizza is in the city and is drowned out by the conservative big end in the country.) is exactly how large swathes of the country still remain so red.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Republican Party just plays the political system to their advantage better overall.

Anyway, let's say redistricting were the main reason DNC lost, who are you going to blame for that? You can blame the Republican Party all you want, but that won't help you win the next election.

Bottom line is that DNC needs some sort of reform. They shouldn't be losing, but they are. Blaming others won't help them win.

[thesameguy]

Anyway, let's say redistricting were the main reason DNC lost, who are you going to blame for that? You can blame the Republican Party all you want, but that won't help you win the next election.

Yup, and when I previously mentioned that, no response.


If you believe that the system is rigged, that the only way to play the game is to cheat, and that Americans are dumb you can either:

1. Assert righteousness until you're blue in the face and hope a bunch of yelling and angry words sway people
2. Change your tactics
3. Give up


You're saying Hillary was sabotaged and that Obama benefitted from being black and that liberal voters are gerrymandered into unwinning districts. All three? So white people won't get minority voters, women won't vote on sex lines, and liberals have insufficient voting power in general, and the conservative media/donor structure is a nearly insurmountable force for Republicans? What does that mean? We can only have male black presidents now?

Love to have more thoughts on the way we get out of this, but rage is also fun.

[21Kid]

against the machine?

or

against the dying of the light?

[thesameguy]

Do we have to choose?

[21Kid]

;)




Choose both!!!!

[Tom Servo]

Trump ran under the premise that he wasn't a politician. He's now defending potential collusion by saying that's just what politicians do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-collusion-normal-defense-trump-jr-tweet/533856/

[Jason]

"There was no collusion"

"I had nothing to do with it"

"I'm new, I didn't understand"

"It's just what politicians do"

[21Kid]

Trump = Billi

[Crazed_Insanity]

:lol:

I'm not just the son of the united states air force officer, I'm the president of the united states! :D

[Freude am Fahren]

I don't know if anyone saw the Ann Coulter tirade againt Delta for moving her seat from an exit row with extra room.

Turns out they moved her to another seat in the same row. So she still had the extra room.

Congratulations Ann, you managed to unite an airline and the public against you.

(Not sure where to put this, but she's political commentator so it goes here, I guess)

[mk]

Since worsening ACA is now down isn't it time for bettering it, and together.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Better together? Yes, but it won't happen.

Make America great and healthy again? Yes, but that also won't happen.

For healthcare, if ACA is so lousy and needs to be repealed and congressmen themselves fall back to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program..., why not just allow this federal benefit as an option to all Americans? Conservatives who wish to save the country money could opt out if they want... make sure to offer this program without any mandates. That should sooth the conservative backlash a bit...

Now, if the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is more wasteful than ACA, then congress must repeal that as well. When more sick Americans die off, hopefully healthcare will finally become cheaper for the surviving fittest...

It's really funny to watch the republican congress... they can't agree on a solution, but can only agree that a democratic piece of legislation is the problem. Okay, you can vote out that problem, but that alone won't make America great again you know?

[novicius]

Sadly, Coulter still has more than enough people that will fund her lifestyle.

At least Kushner beat Bannon back down into his white supremacist hole... not that I like Kushner but, well, I'm digging for sunlight here.

[Jason]

Since they can't seem to agree on a plan now, it seems like the Republicans will do what they can to ensure that ACA 'fails', and when it fails, they'll have their 'told you so' moment.

[Crazed_Insanity]

With regard to ACA, it makes me wonder if I should've voted for Romney... so that we can have Romneycare... which is essentially the same thing as Obamacare...

Anyway, the ball is completely in their court now. Republican voters will eventually see how they made America great again...:rolleyes: and eventually decide to swing back to the democrats.

I can only hope that the democrats will really reform by then and seize the opportunity to play the ball better... and never relinquish the ball ever again! Or else we'll just have to introduce a 3rd player to the game.

[drew]

Since they can't seem to agree on a plan now, it seems like the Republicans will do what they can to ensure that ACA 'fails', and when it fails, they'll have their 'told you so' moment.

Sadly, only people with brains will see that. The others will blindly dive right into that thought.


People are fucking stupid.

[thesameguy]

The GOP has been actively sabotaging ACA for a while now, waiting for their moment. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't drag their feet on the formal repeal, wait until ACA was largely beyond saving or doing some sort of active damage. Going after it so soon, while it was still doing some people some good seems short sighted!

[Tom Servo]

This is kinda fun: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

[G'day Mate]

:up:

[Tom Servo]

Chyron of the day?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCSmR8UQAAAh6E.jpg

[Jason]

Until then, blame the party that has no political power.

[thesameguy]

And the media. Don't forget the media.

[Yw-slayer]

And emails.

[Crazed_Insanity]

:lol:

[The359]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-publishes-profanity-laced-criticisms-voter-fraud-commission-150402914.html


Public comments on the voter fraud commission released by the White House late Thursday were overwhelmingly, and in many cases profanely, critical of the project.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity posted on its page on the White House website, without comment or explanation, 112 pages of emails received through July 11, commenting on the organization’s request for states to send them voter information. The posted material did not redact the email addresses, phone numbers and home addresses of the authors.

“Please note that the Commission may post such written comments publicly on our website, including names and contact information that are submitted,” read a blog post published Thursday on the White House’s site. It is unclear whether this messaging was attached to the email address prior to July 13.

Uh...what? What's the point of posting these emails, or of posting their names, emails, and addresses?

[Kchrpm]

The point of posting the emails was to show the public sentiment, you could easily see a different version of this where they didn't release what was received and just claimed that the public supports them.

If they truly had a warning saying that all submitted information could be posted publicly, without redaction, then people should have known. It would have been preferred if they had taken the time to redact the emails while whatever intern was skimming them, though.

[Tom Servo]

McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/07/19/john-mccain-diagnosed-with-brain-cancer/1u4HsLPfN8J1toStLt3G5H/story.html

I'm guessing that helps explain his occasionally irrational behavior, like at the Comey hearing. Hope he's able to beat it.

[The359]

The point of posting the emails was to show the public sentiment, you could easily see a different version of this where they didn't release what was received and just claimed that the public supports them.

If they truly had a warning saying that all submitted information could be posted publicly, without redaction, then people should have known. It would have been preferred if they had taken the time to redact the emails while whatever intern was skimming them, though.

But the emails were all negative. Why would they need to publish anything negative about them?

[G'day Mate]

I'm guessing that helps explain his occasionally irrational behavior, like at the Comey hearing. Hope he's able to beat it.

Indeed

[Freude am Fahren]

McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/07/19/john-mccain-diagnosed-with-brain-cancer/1u4HsLPfN8J1toStLt3G5H/story.html

I'm guessing that helps explain his occasionally irrational behavior, like at the Comey hearing. Hope he's able to beat it.

I also hope it's been there since 2008 then.

[FaultyMario]

Fuck cancer.

[neanderthal]

Since worsening ACA is now down isn't it time for bettering it, and together.

This will never happen. The GOP are carrying water for the multi millionaires and billionaires that own them and line their pockets/ coffers/ campaigns. They are doing NOTHING for the working person; just talking.

This talk of repealing Obamacare and cutting Medicaid is nothing but a grab for that tax cut that the rich contribute to it. If it wasn't, there would be no need to gut Medicare as it is one of the best healthcare systems in this country with probably the lowest operating costs. It's literally the model that Obamacare should be modelled on, if not improve.

They will wrap up their derision of taxes in another package and call it something else. As long as it cuts taxes for their sugar daddies.

[Tom Servo]

A friend of mine's Facebook status:


Set up a GoFundMe to pay for McCain's treatment, or trust that thoughts and prayers are enough? Adopting the Republican platform is harder than I expected.

Certainly not meant as a slight towards McCain himself, but goddamn I thought that was a good distillation of where we're at.

[Tom Servo]

The Treasury Department is fining Exxon Mobil for violating Russian sanctions during the time Tillerson was heading up the company.

https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/888041992101535744

[tigeraid]

Useful statistic.

http://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20264665_268857820185860_4729439734381815597_n.png ?oh=d077c60c1b5dd0cf952a4c20832f0cb4&oe=59FE8077

[Jason]

To be fair, he has signed various executive orders, some that are considered 'major'. He just hasn't been able to push anything through Congress.

[Kchrpm]

If only he was a self-proclaimed master negotiator with a majority in Congress.

[Tom Servo]

To be fair, he has signed various executive orders, some that are considered 'major'. He just hasn't been able to push anything through Congress.

This is true, and was something that his base railed against Obama for, as executive orders were tyranny back then.

[Crazed_Insanity]

A friend of mine's Facebook status:



Certainly not meant as a slight towards McCain himself, but goddamn I thought that was a good distillation of where we're at.

I'm pretty sure McCain doesn't really need the money for treatment. Good thoughts and prayers certainly should suffice... BTW, I'm not a Republican and I can do prayers. Praying is not something restricted to Republicans. I also donate money to church and various charitable orgs and I'm also not a democrat. No need, for your friend, to politicize everything...

[George]

Sad to hear the news about John McCain today.

[Tom Servo]

Billi, there's no way you don't understand that the concept is that the 20+ million people that will lose their health insurance under the republican ACA replacement plan will be left with either GoFundMe or hopes and prayers if they get sick, and it's not actually directly related to whether or not McCain has health insurance, right? It doesn't have anything to do with him, his financial status, or who prays, but everything to do with the fact that this is right in the middle of an attempt by him and others to change the health insurance laws that will leave millions of people with no options other than that. I mean, you get that, right?

[Crazed_Insanity]

I do.

Let's ignore the fact that corrupt republican politicians probably just want to repeal ACA to save money for the rich...

Why do most conservative voters still want to repeal affordable healthcare? Is it really because they are dumb and prefer prayer over having affordable healthcare?

[edit]
I probably shouldn't say 'most' conservative voters, but probably still significant number of conservative voters...
I think there are 54% of Trump supporters are in favor of fixing ACA rather than ending it.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-new-poll-shows-americans-want-to-fix-1488836416-htmlstory.html
Our congress, whether GOP or DNC controlled, ceased to fully represent the voters of either side... now mainly in the grasp of powerful lobbyist groups... but anyway, my previous question remains. Do you really believe those who wish to end ACA are just dumb and prefer prayers?

[Freude am Fahren]

For the most part, yes.

Mostly it's because they are selfish and/or ignorant.

[Crazed_Insanity]

You arrived at that conclusion thru conservative friends/acquaintances of yours?

[21Kid]

If only he was a self-proclaimed master negotiator with a majority in Congress.
AT LEAST HE DIDN'T KEEP EMAILS ON HIS PRIVATE SERVER!!! Where someone might hack into it!!!


(He just told Russian officials top secret information in person)

[thesameguy]

Guys, it's easy to make fun of him, but he is probably the most maligned politician in history. He's really had a rough go, though no fault of his own.

[Tom Servo]

but anyway, my previous question remains. Do you really believe those who wish to end ACA are just dumb and prefer prayers?

No it doesn't. It was a stupid question then and it's a stupid question now.

[neanderthal]

.... Do you really believe those who wish to end ACA are just dumb and prefer prayers?


You arrived at that conclusion thru conservative friends/acquaintances of yours?

No. It's because who with a functioning mind wants to end healthcare? Only a dumb fucking fuck or stupid fucking twat. Profanity deliberately used to emphasise the enormity of this dumbfuckery.

Our system may not be perfect as it is but its eons better than what we had before the ACA; people no longer have to mortgage their houses because their kid got sick. Or because they got cancer.

I'm single with no kids, no real bills, have a job with good health benefits and even I have thought about going to Mexico, India, Spain, or Australia for health related travel What does that tell you about our system.


It's a stupid question to even think that repealing our current system is a viable option. Can it be improved? Hell the fuck yes! But we dare not accept even a thought of a backward step.

Shit like this is exactly why any words or thoughts that have greatest in them, in reference to America, have a hollow ring to anybody with two brain cells to rub together.

[Crazed_Insanity]

No it doesn't. It was a stupid question then and it's a stupid question now.

Why is it a stupid question?

Do you know why some conservatives want it repealed?

(Other than they are a bunch of dumb racist fucks who believe in Jesus?)

[neanderthal]

Guys, it's easy to make fun of him, but he is probably the most maligned politician in history. He's really had a rough go, though no fault of his own.

"Washington is broken. Only I alone can fix it." Donald J Dumbfuck.

[Tom Servo]

Why is it a stupid question?

Because it proves that you *didn't* understand the concept of the joke. Despite what you said, and the nearly coherent thought you had after that, you still think it's making fun of hope and prayer, *NOT* that finding yourself without health insurance leaves you with social media based fundraising and "hope". You didn't get the joke, you still don't, you somehow are upset that something political was posted in the politics thread, and it's just time to stop.

[Kchrpm]

Do you know why some conservatives want it repealed?

Broadly, to reduce federal control and oversight. Additionally, they want to replace it so that people will still be covered. Unfortunately they haven't figured out how to do both simultaneously, which is what they promised.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Because it proves that you *didn't* understand the concept of the joke. Despite what you said, and the nearly coherent thought you had after that, you still think it's making fun of hope and prayer, *NOT* that finding yourself without health insurance leaves you with social media based fundraising and "hope". You didn't get the joke, you still don't, you somehow are upset that something political was posted in the politics thread, and it's just time to stop.
You're right that I didn't get it.

However one gets the concept of that 'joke', I find it difficult for anyone to really find it funny. Maybe my sense of humor is just really lousy. Sorry.

Thanks kchrpm for answering my stupid question. I really believe in order for both sides to become better together, we must try to 1St understand each other. Yes, conservatives are statistically less educated, but surely the differences are not as great as night and day... It's sad, to me, that both sides prefer to continue focus and poke fun of their differences rather than focus on what they have in common...

I also do believe that the rich establishment also purposely play on this human nature in order to get what they want. Kinda like how US and Russia like to wage war in various nations in order to keep them split up so that it not only keep these nations weak..., but also profit from arms selling.

[21Kid]

Wow Mo... One billi post and your full-rage. :mad:

[MR2 Fan]

Sean Spicer has quit, 1 DJT lawyer has quit and 1 has stepped down from a key role....the ship is sinking fast!

[sandydandy]

Melissa McCarthy will be devastated.

[drew]

This whole shit show makes me think of the opening scene of RoboCop (the original).


The administration is Murphy, getting shot to fuck by everyone else involved, waiting for the metaphorical bullet to the dome form Boddicker with "Fun's over"

[Tom Servo]

Impressed that in his twitter tirade this morning he's still saying "But, but, Hillary!", claiming that Don Jr. courageously offered up the email thread (minutes before the NY Times published them and well after they'd told him they were going to), and that Sean Spicer quit because the media was too mean to him. Which makes sense, since he only hires the best people. In the meantime, Alex Jones is running around on Infowars claiming that Spicer was a member of the "Deep State" and has now been ousted by "patriots". Still...only hiring the best.

[FaultyMario]

McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/07/19/john-mccain-diagnosed-with-brain-cancer/1u4HsLPfN8J1toStLt3G5H/story.html

"Friendship and war" (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/10/21/a-friendship-that-ended-the-war)


"We started talking about the war, and Vietnam, prison—what had happened to him, and all that. . . . Nothing had brought us together before, and we just talked. We talked about what I had done." Kerry was referring to the episode that McCain had denounced in the 1984 campaign. "But by now it wasn't a big hurdle," he went on. "To his credit, he didn't make it one. He made it clear that he had moved beyond all that. . . . The war was a tough period for a lot of people, for a lot of reasons. Both of us decided to put all that kind of stuff behind us, and work together at something."

[neanderthal]

Wow Mo... One billi post and your full-rage. :mad:

Such a dumb question bro.

I have heard of people who want to get rid of Obamacare, but only anecdotally, outside of GOP politicians.
I observed a hilarious exchange between someone who was adamantly against Obamacare because his family's premiums had gone up, and someone who was pro Obamacare. Anti had literally not done any research on the options open to him and was paying four times what he used to and pissed. Pro, in quick i- know- what- the- fuck- i'm- doing action, found an equally good policy that was $20 more than antis had been before, when he had a substandard policy. That was the only time I "knew" someone vehemently against it.


Maybe my circle needs widening.

[MR2 Fan]

The kind of genius we're dealing with on the right

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDXfzliUQAIaqwk.jpg


and



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFYgsd2XsAAHpQx.jpg:large

[neanderthal]

The kind of genius we're dealing with on the right

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDXfzliUQAIaqwk.jpg


and



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFYgsd2XsAAHpQx.jpg:large

And after, they won't even listen to you about anything else!

[drew]

I have a co-worker that said he got pulled over for speeding, because he was yelling at the radio. Listening to Rush (ffs), he (co-worker) was red-faced-enraged because callers were "criticizing Trump".


Even his base can't take criticism. Which I suppose makes sense.

[G'day Mate]

That 51 to 48 vote ... that was when Obama was still able to veto, correct? I remember seeing that screenshot a while ago.

[Crazed_Insanity]

The kind of genius we're dealing with on the right


Actually there's wide spread confusion amongst all Americans. According to NY times, more republicans know that ACA and obamacare are the same...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html


Among Republicans, a higher percentage (72 percent) said they knew Obamacare and the A.C.A. were the same, which may reflect the party’s longstanding hostility to the law.
That's still 28% don't know...

I guess sometimes it may be necessary to not fully represent the people...

[Tom Servo]

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for *me*.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFciqTuUwAA7ZZZ.jpg

[FaultyMario]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFciqTuUwAA7ZZZ.jpg


Welcome to Washington, Mr. President. https://t.co/oyQGXCkmlD

[21Kid]

Way not to abuse your power... :erm: I think he thinks this is an authoritarian government. After accusing Obama of being a dictator for 8 years, maybe he actually thinks that's the kind of government we now have? :?

[FaultyMario]

What if instead of twitter he tried old school polotickery?

[MR2 Fan]

so once this whole thing is over....can we get Gary Busey to play Trump in the biopic?

[Tom Servo]

And Gilbert Gottfried as Jared Kushner.

[MR2 Fan]

http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2495&d=1500936922

[Tom Servo]

I realize it's immature but, who wore it better?

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10864715.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/MAIN-MAIN-Eyebrows.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D-RA7JOTEUM/T1J-ybqyilI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/HZHPS4QkYJ4/s1600/Back.jpg

[novicius]

Please tell me that's somebody's cruel Photoshop. :lol:

[Tom Servo]

It's not.

[tigeraid]

Trump's new press secretary believes in climate change, gun control, abortion and gay rights. And is currently trying to delete all those old tweets so no one finds out. Thank you, Internet.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/scaramucci-social-media?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.vsmdDBQqv#.drpqlMV4O


http://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-07/21/14/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/sub-buzz-17640-1500662342-2.png

http://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-07/21/14/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-25128-1500660957-1.png

[Tom Servo]

Well, don't forget, in the spirit of full transparency, he told people that he was deleting tweets. Instead of, I guess, just leaving them there. Which I have to admit, sounds a little more transparent.

[Jason]

Does he *currently* believe those things?

Doubtful.

[21Kid]

Who is paying him?

[thesameguy]

Does he *currently* believe those things?

Doubtful.

He will believe whatever you pay him to believe. That's what makes him great!

[FaultyMario]

He will believe whatever you pay him to believe. That's what makes him great!

I think it was you, Justin, who once said that some of the Doctors of Medicine you had met had in fact used up all their MP for heal/restore.
I see that with other professions as well, this Scaramucci douche looks like an awful guy to be around... it makes you wonder what the fuck their moms were putting into the pasta primavera when these fuckstains were growing up. In his 2010 CNBC intervention telling Obama to stop treating him like a piñata... because he is there representing Wall Street... For a market-driven guy, you really have to wonder how much of his time ("my rate's at so many hundreds per hour" - I'm sure you've heard them) he spent, to be at that TV set to pose that question (jab?) at the sitting president, and what he thought he was going to get back. And then his exaggerated claim: "it costs 90 thousand dollars a month to create a 35k job" (62% earnings tax - in what kingdom of middle earth?) is especially grievous because it comes from a financier.

It's the same with Ryan, Cruz and Rubio... even Bob Dole had a couple of marbles still bouncing inside.

[thesameguy]

:lol: - but also :sadbanana:

I totally understand the concept of "ultimate capitalist," and, in general "ultimate whatever." I think it's a natural human tendency. Society encourages specialization, especially advanced societies. These people don't have to understand farming, family, or anything beyond their profession. It sucks. My dad once lamented the loss of generalists and I didn't understand him at the time - I was probably 13. I get it now.

[FaultyMario]

Obama's address to the NSJ, 2010: 263 words.

Trump's address to the NSJ, 2017: 4,218 words

[thesameguy]

Wonder how many of those words were half sentences and insanity. :lol:

[FaultyMario]

Something last name youth something.

[Freude am Fahren]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20258201_1789226597772996_7779807858553401771_n.jp g?oh=caf42621be11c7be263b83a33f4b9232&oe=5A3704CF

I guess my biggest question, it why did it take him 9 minutes to send out the second part of what is clearly a pre-written statement. He must have had to wipe.

[Tom Servo]

It sounds like they also want to kick out the 15,000+ currently serving transgender people serving in the military. Someone reported that a WH official said this was based around forcing dems to stake a position on transgender issues including the military, hoping that that would play poorly in places like rust belt states where some GOP senators may be facing tough re-election fights in 2018, not so much on any actual military advice.

[The359]

Same with the Boy Scout thing. He doesn't care about issues or things, he just cares about how he can use it to manipulate a victory.

[sandydandy]

I saw part of that Boy Scouts speech. It was nauseating at best. Don't know how people actually sat through it. Bunch of yammering about momentum and the odd reference to fake news, and people went home happy.

[Freude am Fahren]

Analysis: Military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender medical care (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/analysis-military-spends-five-times-as-much-on-viagra-as-it-would-on-transgender-medical-care-20170726.html)


Considering the prevalence of transgender servicemembers among the active duty military and the typical health-care costs for gender transition-related medical treatment, the Rand study estimated that these treatments would cost the military between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually.

The study didn’t include estimates of these costs for reservists, due to “their highly limited military health care eligibility.” It also didn’t include estimates for retirees or military family members, because many of those individuals may also have “limited eligibility” for care via military treatment facilities.

“The implication is that even in the most extreme scenario that we were able to identify … we expect only a 0.13-percent ($8.4 million out of $6.2 billion) increase in health-care spending,” Rand’s authors concluded.

By contrast, total military spending on erectile-dysfunction medicines amounts to $84 million annually, according to an analysis by the Military Times — 10 times the cost of annual transition-related medical care for active duty transgender servicemembers.

The military spends $41.6 million annually on Viagra alone, according to the Military Times analysis — roughly five times the estimated spending on transition-related medical care for transgender troops.

Looked at another way, the upper estimate for annual transgender medical costs in the military amounts to less than one-10th of the price of a new F-35 fighter jet. Or, 1,000th of one percent of the Defense Department’s annual budget.

The price of providing medical care to transgender servicemembers, in other words, is negligible, and hardly “tremendous” as the president put it.

[George]

That article doesn't ask or answer the obvious question: WHY is the military spending our tax dollars on Viagra?

[Tom Servo]

Boners.

[Crazed_Insanity]

To be fair, that's kinda like comparing apples and oranges.

For example, what was the 'estimated' cost of a F-35 vs the 'true' cost of F-35? The 2 numbers can vary greatly.

What was the DOD's original 'estimate' for their Viagra expenditure? That may help us gain insight on what the true medical cost might be...

One side the playing up this issue and the other side is playing down this issue while we all know there are other more important issues to deal with, but we'll just ignore them and kick those buckets down the road and let future generations deal with it...

Politics as usual. Sigh...

[It was kinda interesting to know that if we stop treating servicemen's erectile dysfunctions, we could buy ONE MORE F-35 EVERY YEAR!]
[edit]Actually just googled... F-35 costs around $100million depending on version... so the money we saved on Viagra will take about 3 years to get us another F-35! BTW, F-35 price tag more than doubled from it's original projection.

[Freude am Fahren]

That article doesn't ask or answer the obvious question: WHY is the military spending our tax dollars on Viagra?

I wonder....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/US_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff_Jul_1983.jpg

[MR2 Fan]

They should offer free Viagra at Planned Parenthood, maybe they wouldn't be trying to shut it down all the time

[21Kid]

:lol:

[SportWagon]

Same with the Boy Scout thing. He doesn't care about issues or things, he just cares about how he can use it to manipulate a victory.When I saw the Boy Scout thing on Daily Show I thought the scouts were booing Trump. Web searches suggest Trump at least believes he was leading them in booing the persons not present whom he had needlessly mentioned and attempted to malign. Does he really believe there are no ordinary people (e.g. among the Boy Scouts) who think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has at least some good points?

Searches show Barack Obama did address a Boy Scout Jamboree, although it was way back in 2010. (But that was their 100th anniversary).

A search finds comparisons. Trump's speech was 58 minutes?????

Oh wait,. Obama actually didn't go to the Jamboree in person to address the scouts. That was bad form.

[neanderthal]

When I saw the Boy Scout thing on Daily Show I thought the scouts were booing Trump. Web searches suggest Trump at least believes he was leading them in booing the persons not present whom he had needlessly mentioned and attempted to malign. Does he really believe there are no ordinary people (e.g. among the Boy Scouts) who think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has at least some good points?

Searches show Barack Obama did address a Boy Scout Jamboree, although it was way back in 2010. (But that was their 100th anniversary).

A search finds comparisons. Trump's speech was 58 minutes?????

Oh wait,. Obama actually didn't go to the Jamboree in person to address the scouts. That was bad form.

Obama didn't address the scouts based on their then policy of excluding gay members from participating.

[neanderthal]

I love this article. (http://www.theroot.com/stupid-or-liar-what-justine-damond-s-death-proves-ab-1797205184?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayAM)

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes, I love how it stirs up racial tension further.

[Leon]

To be fair, that's kinda like comparing apples and oranges.


I thought it was more like comparing a limp sock to a firm banana.

[neanderthal]

Yes, I love how it stirs up racial tension further.

You mean you love how the entire narrative changes when it's a white woman who is killed by a police officer?
No other police shooting has mentioned the religion of the police officer, but here we are told he is Muslim. Why do you think that is?

[neanderthal]

That article doesn't ask or answer the obvious question: WHY is the military spending our tax dollars on Viagra?

I'd hazard a guess that a lot of it is going to the warlords in Afghanistan and Iraq so they can fuck their younger brides.

[Drachen596]

That officers religion and where he came from were big news when he got hired wasn't it?

The only part I have wondered about is the 3 complaints against him in less than 2 years on the force. I dont see his race or religion being an issue.

[Yw-slayer]

Unless the complaints were made BECAUSE of his race and/or religion.

[Crazed_Insanity]

You mean you love how the entire narrative changes when it's a white woman who is killed by a police officer?
No other police shooting has mentioned the religion of the police officer, but here we are told he is Muslim. Why do you think that is?

I think it's now obviously that particular police department has a shooting problem, an equal opportunity shooting problem. The shootings did not occur because black lives don't matter, they happened because that particular police force is either under-trained or just not very well managed or something.

Now, I will give you that because this time the accident happened to a squeaky clean white girl, now that the narrative changed... and more heads began to roll... so I guess white lives matters more from that respect.

Anyway, my point had always been that police shootings are not necessarily targeted specifically at black people by racist cops. I tend to think it's more due to poorly trained spooked cops who constantly worry about their lives in our gun loving culture...

We do have a shooting problem... and we need to solve it, but we shouldn't have to make all cops as racists because it. I also do admit to a racial inequality problem, but until society in general has gotten rid of racism, it's unrealistic to expect cops to be completely racist free... we need to target one problem to solve at a time(minimize shooting deaths), rather than stir up emotions and exacerbate problems and make it infinitely harder to solve.

[neanderthal]

Bullfuckingshit.

We have a racist ass cops problem, but because it doesn't affect you its an "under trained cops" problem. Tamir fucking Rice was a twelve year old kid shot by cops as soon as they got to the playground. But I guess his blackness masked his innocence, right. Aiyana Stanley- Jones, a 7 year old, was sleeping on a couch when she was shot dead. but I guess her innocence don't matter t you coz she was black. And you're here trying to tell me about a "squeeky clean white girl?"

She was a grown ass 40 year old WOMAN! Getdafuckoutahere!

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, it was dark and she must've been wearing black pajamas... And that's probably why cop thought she's black and shot her even before they got out of their car! You must be right and I must be wrong. Case closed.