There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[Guest_d2e60302]

That the actual claim the Russians defeated her and if they weren't present, she would be president was common and made by all the best journalists in all the best journals. And Hillary herself lent credence to that claim by saying she would not rule out questioning Trump's legitimacy depending on what an investigation finds.

Given how close the election was, I think it was a possibility that that without the hacked emails she would have won, but then that is different than what I was addressing with that quote, which was the $1.25 million / month ad and rally campaign which likely had a much smaller effect than the DNC email hack.
If the investigation shows that Trump broke the law to win the election then Clinton would be absolutely correct to question Trumps legitimacy, even if it may be too late to overturn the results, at least IMHO.
On the record, I am not a fan of Clinton either.

but then that is different than what I was addressing with that quote, which was the $1.25 million / month ad and rally campaign which likely had a much smaller effect than the DNC email hack.

My understanding from reading today is the ad campaign targeted those swing states, which presumably would make them more important (or as important) as the leaked emails.

Regardless of the election, the ads are what is the huge deal now in terms of #FakeNews and various demands that Facebook crack down on fake news, and terrible studies demonstrating all conservative news must be fake news.

(Hacked emails vs leaked emails, is there anything definitive on that? But I think it's reasonable to assume they were hacked, I don't think it changes things too much.)

I'm a bit surprised at the arguments that the popular vote matters at all. If football was scored by yardage and not touchdowns and field goals it would be a very different game. So saying that the Patriots ran better in the Superbowl means nothing. (I don't know which team ran better).

[Kirbmarc]

Given how close the election was, I think it was a possibility that that without the hacked emails she would have won

It is definitely a possibility, but it's not an excuse for the Democrats to double down on the SocJus craziness or the Hillary-worshiping shit.

but then that is different than what I was addressing with that quote, which was the $1.25 million / month ad and rally campaign which likely had a much smaller effect than the DNC email hack.

I'm willing to bet that the ads and rally campaign had an effect smaller than Clinton shooting herself in the foot with "basket of deplorables" shtick.

If the investigation shows that Trump broke the law to win the election then Clinton would be absolutely correct to question Trumps legitimacy, even if it may be too late to overturn the results, at least IMHO.

If that's the case the Congress should impeach Trump and also go after other people involved in the crime if they're in a position of authority. Overturning the results is impossible and quite frankly I wouldn't like a system where it would be possible to decide the outcome of an election through the courts, unless of course voter fraud/voter tampering is involved (and not just the hacked emails). Nixon resigned under the clear threat of impeachment but the outcome of the 1972 election wasn't reversed. Clinton should have shut up and waited for the results of the Muller investigation to then question Trump's legitimacy (not the outcome of the election), instead of faffing about how her birthright as a Strong Womyn was stolen from her by a bunch of Evil Misogynists.

[free thoughtpolice]

Calm down

I appreciate your concern for my blood pressure but I'm not pissed off.
I happen to think it is understandable for the dems to be pissed off by their emails getting stolen and although not for certain there is a good chance that was the straw that broke the camel's back. It doesn't excuse a lousy candidate or a poorly run campaign, but they have a point when they say that may have enough to change the campaign.
Can you say that had the Russians not grabbed the DNC emails and doled them out through wikileaks the outcome would have been the same?

[Brive1987]

So Hillary won the popular vote because she creamed a limited number of high population, high liberal centres?

This runs against the common theme that there was a fairly uniform love-in for Hillary, with a couple of Nazi exceptions, resulting in a won popular vote lost due to EC technicalities.

If the former is true, then bravo the EC in 2016.

[KiwiInOz]

So. I watched Black Panther yesterday. This is a no spoilers review.

It was a typical Marvel superhero movie, with all the bells and whistles one expects. The actors were good and the dynamics between them generally worked.

The opportunity to create a truly powerful and seditious movie was lost because of some sloppy lines, character development, and (probably) editing. The flags were planted in the ground, but then left hanging, as if the slogan was enough.

I wouldn't have known whether the director was black or white from the movie, but I certainly knew that he was American, of the US variety.

[Guest_d2e60302]

My biggest concern is that the Democrats will use the Russian/email shenanigans as an excuse to double down with their SocJus-friendly strategy which yields votes in New York and California but alienates people in other parts of the US, and that they might pay dearly for it by failing to capitalize on Trump's many, many flaws and mistakes.

Yep. If Trump had punched Hillary and the DNC in the nose, maybe today, Democrats would be seeing party reform. Instead, it's just getting worse. Democrat Establishment and the press using the Russian shenanigans as a way to shield the Democrat Establishment and the press.

We get one article after another saying how important it is for the Democrats to shun the middle class, the elderly, the rust belt, demanding Hillary be throned because it was her crown stolen from her, and that the pundits and politicians did nothing wrong.

The Democrats and pundits have been falling all over themselves to see who could give the FBI the best and sloppiest blow job. (As well as fellating the former, proven liars that had led the FBI and NSA).

The FBI is going to save our country.

[free thoughtpolice]

I'm willing to bet that the ads and rally campaign had an effect smaller than Clinton shooting herself in the foot with "basket of deplorables" shtick.

I wouldn't bet against that proposition.That was truly a major fuck up. When I heard her say that I couldn't believe she was stupid enough to say that. Her other mistake was to run her campaign saying people should vote for her because she was a woman and well qualified, meanwhile saying virtually nothing about what she would do for the people that voted for her.

[Kirbmarc]

Calm down

I appreciate your concern for my blood pressure but I'm not pissed off.
I happen to think it is understandable for the dems to be pissed off by their emails getting stolen and although not for certain there is a good chance that was the straw that broke the camel's back. It doesn't excuse a lousy candidate or a poorly run campaign, but they have a point when they say that may have enough to change the campaign.
Can you say that had the Russians not grabbed the DNC emails and doled them out through wikileaks the outcome would have been the same?

No, it cannot be said. The emails certainly played a significant role in the election, how significant it's hard to say but surely much more than the bunch of ads that the Russians paid for. But the time for recriminations is over. Investigate the matter, yes, punish those responsible, yes, teach better security strategies, of course, implement better safety to prevent things like this from happening again, well duh.

It's the bitching and moaning about how it is so unfair that Her Majesty Clinton was dethroned by a conspiracy of Evil Man-Beasts that pisses me off. Life is unfair, get a helmet, or better yet learn from what's happened to improve. Instead we get the same SocJus-friendly, corporate-friendly, elitist mushy pap, along with infighting (mostly by blaming Sanders) and lots, LOTS of whining.

[free thoughtpolice]

Calm down Kirb. :P

[Kirbmarc]

When your enemy defeats you in battle through a clever, if underhanded and unfair, strategy, you need to learn what went wrong, how you can improve, and yes, root out any traitors in your ranks if there are any. What's pathetic is whining about how the enemy is evil and how you totally would have won the battle if it wasn't for them being so evil.

Let's say the enemy manages to burn down one of your armories, and you have good reason to believe that a traitor might have left the door of the armory open. Let's suppose that due to the fire you weren't able to delivery ammo to a key position, and this might be one of the reasons why you lost an important battle.

It's your duty to figure out how to better defend your armories, how to identify clearly who the traitor was (if there was a traitor) and how to prepare for the next battle. But the buck ultimately stops with the commanding officer. If the commanding officer offers only excuses and doesn't seem to make any changes in strategy, but instead carries on saying that the enemy was so unfair and didn't respect the rules of chivalry, perhaps they're a crap commanding officer, and they need to be replaced.

[Kirbmarc]

Calm down Kirb. :P

I'm taking it out on a Trumpy Bear.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9pwmLMuV19g/maxresdefault.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

My biggest concern is that the Democrats will use the Russian/email shenanigans as an excuse to double down with their SocJus-friendly strategy which yields votes in New York and California but alienates people in other parts of the US, and that they might pay dearly for it by failing to capitalize on Trump's many, many flaws and mistakes.

Yep. If Trump had punched Hillary and the DNC in the nose, maybe today, Democrats would be seeing party reform. Instead, it's just getting worse. Democrat Establishment and the press using the Russian shenanigans as a way to shield the Democrat Establishment and the press.

We get one article after another saying how important it is for the Democrats to shun the middle class, the elderly, the rust belt, demanding Hillary be throned because it was her crown stolen from her, and that the pundits and politicians did nothing wrong.

The Democrats and pundits have been falling all over themselves to see who could give the FBI the best and sloppiest blow job. (As well as fellating the former, proven liars that had led the FBI and NSA).

The FBI is going to save our country.

Worse still, the SocJus is made up of useful idiots for the corporate class AND the Democratic establishment. People who are allegedly anti-capitalist are supporting Google (!!) against the Eeeevil James Damore. Radfems are discussing how the next candidate MUST be a woman, and THEIR kind of woman, or else the Democratic Party is sexist, and who cares about policies, 'mright, gender is SO much more important. Po-Mo identitarians are discussing only about quotas in the corporate class and in politics, because you know that if there is something that is going to help poor black people is having more black CEOs and black politicians (it worked wonders for poor white people so far!).

The SocJus isn't just self-referential and elitist, it's also a liability. The GOP has already used #MeToo to take down Al Franken for a couple of stupid photos, and the SocJus has taken the bait hook, line and sinker.

It's also divisive and leads to bad decisions. The "Women's March" is led by a Saudi apologist like Linda Sarsour, and is fighting over whether pussy hats are transphobic.

Trump is such a terrible president, and has screwed over the people who voted for him so much, that it should be a cakewalk for the Democratic Party to capitalize on his flaws and mistakes and take back the House in 2018. Instead they're their own worst enemy: overconfident, smug and elitist when they're not insane or litigious.

[InfraRedBucket]

Slightly off topic (but not completely). this "gender swap" of US presidents is doing the rounds.

27867527_10215691997475596_1716043307416757586_n.jpg

(88.64 KiB) Downloaded 219 times

and for us Brits, here are the Prime Ministers:

DWDw_SHX0AAL-PQ.jpg

(210.06 KiB) Downloaded 211 times

They missed one out:

DWKBTt3WkAEVlAl.jpg

(22.71 KiB) Downloaded 210 times

-

[free thoughtpolice]

A slight change of topic. The phenomena that is political dynasties that occurs in the US and Canada at least (I'm not sure if this as bad in Yurp) is poison to democracy. We have second Trudeau in power in Canada that is mainly there because of his last name. The Conservatives have Carolyn Mulroney, daughter of ex disaster PM Lyin' Brian as a contender for their leadership.
In the US you have the Kennedy family, the Bushes, the Clintons.
Wasn't a linchpin of modern democracy getting rid of passing power through hereditary lines?

[Really?]

Guest_d2e60302: I'm not sure whether that post was supposed to dispute what you quoted me as writing, ...

Not dispute what you wrote overall, but just to respond to your question

Actually, that wasn't the only operation the Russians were involved in toward the campaign and I don't know anyone that thinks it was only the intervention of the Russians that defeated her. Who is saying that?

That the actual claim the Russians defeated her and if they weren't present, she would be president was common and made by all the best journalists in all the best journals. And Hillary herself lent credence to that claim by saying she would not rule out questioning Trump's legitimacy depending on what an investigation finds.

I am not sure where you are getting your information. Hillary Clinton herself said it would be "horrifying" to question the legitimacy of the election. As we have since learned, Obama, Clinton, the DNC, the intelligence agencies all knew that Russia was meddling. And yet, Hillary made a big issue in the waning weeks of the election about the prospect that Trump, egotist that he is, might lose the election and spend the next couple years demanding investigations and blaming everyone but himself for the loss. And only a true shithole would do such a thing, right?

[Really?]

Kirbmarc wrote:

It's good for the US to look into what happened about the leaked emails from a national security perspective, but the Clinton fans who think that Russia stole what was rightfully hers are pathetic.

All the evidence was that those hacked, and stolen and not innocently "leaked".
Am I to believe that you think it is ethical and legal to hack into private emails?
How fair is it uncover one side's dirty, but not illegal secrets but not the other side's to throw an election? I am truly shocked if you think that type of crap is OK.

Everyone knows both parties are equally corrupt and that the RNC tried to kneecap Trump, but made the mistake of having input from the rank and file of the party. The Dems were smart enough to keep the little people out of the decision making process.

And if we think leaks are unethical, then surely we oppose the calculated release of the long buried grabembythepussy tape and those pages of Trump's tax returns, right? And the Wikileaks that illustrated the evil we were doing abroad. Also bad?

[free thoughtpolice]

Or 2 shitholes.

[Really?]

Kirbmarc wrote:

It's good for the US to look into what happened about the leaked emails from a national security perspective, but the Clinton fans who think that Russia stole what was rightfully hers are pathetic.

All the evidence was that those hacked, and stolen and not innocently "leaked".
Am I to believe that you think it is ethical and legal to hack into private emails?
How fair is it uncover one side's dirty, but not illegal secrets but not the other side's to throw an election? I am truly shocked if you think that type of crap is OK.

Calm down. You make too many assumptions on the basis of a single word you don't like. The emails were leaked...to Wikileaks. That's not a judgement of value, just a statement of fact.

No, I don't think that what happened is ethical or legal or "OK". As I've written, it's a matter of national security, of reinforcing protection for sensitive material, and of teaching people how phishing works. I have no objections about the US investigating how and why the security breach happened, who exactly was involved and to what extent, and implementing strategies to avoid it happening in the future.

The thing I found pathetic is the insistence of the Clinton fan that it was the email scandal that defeated her. It surely played a role in Clinton's loss, it's hard to say how big it was, and the scandal is too often used an excuse from the Clinton camp to avoid facing their responsibilities for their mistakes in the campaign.

Wikileaks leaked Podesta emails. He was not part of the government in any respect. He was part of Hillary's campaign. She was a private citizen.

The DNC leaks were also not an intrusion into a government arm. Parties are private organizations, like the Pit itself. The owner of the DNC is not a political actor. He or she just runs the club. That club was allowed to collect money from people while lying about how it operates.

Now if the parties want to change their relationship to the government, meaning they have to follow rules, I am open to the discussion.

[Really?]

Or 2 shitholes.

Or four shitholes if you count their bungholes and Trump's dick hole. These were two embarrassingly bad candidates who don't feel enough shame to be embarrassed by anything.

[free thoughtpolice]

And if we think leaks are unethical, then surely we oppose the calculated release of the long buried grabembythepussy tape and those pages of Trump's tax returns, right? And the Wikileaks that illustrated the evil we were doing abroad. Also bad?

Leaks aren't necessarily illegal. Stealing information is, such as hacking. If those tapes about pussy grabbing were stolen, that would be bad. As it was, they were the property of a corporation that had news divisions. It wasn't foreign intelligence stealing private communications.

Publication[edit]
According to Access Hollywood, the discovery of the video was prompted by "Mr. Trump's denial of claims contained in an Associated Press story in which 20 former Apprentice employees described Mr. Trump's behavior toward women as lewd and inappropriate."[10] An NBC source said that an Access Hollywood producer remembered the conversation on Monday, October 3, and located it in the show's archives.[4][11] The celebrity news website TMZ reports a different chronology: when top executives at NBC learned about the video, they thought it was too early in the presidential campaign season to release it with maximum effect, and (according to TMZ) those executives publicly said they learned of the video long after they actually learned about it.[12][13]

NBC discussed whether to release the tape and had lawyers review the legality of the publication, as is common among other news media due to the possibility that the involved parties might file a lawsuit if the video was released.[5] By Tuesday, October 4, NBC had drafted a story that it declined to broadcast for another three days.[5][14] On Friday, October 7, at around 11 a.m., an unidentified source gave a copy of the tape to Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold, who contacted NBC for comment, notified the Trump campaign that he had the video, obtained confirmation of its authenticity, and released a story and the tape itself by 4 p.m.[3][4] Alerted that the Post might release the story immediately,[4] NBC News released its own story "mere minutes" after the Post story was published.[7]

By that evening, the Post's story had become "the most concurrently viewed article in the history of the Post's website" with more than 100,000 people reading it on the afternoon of October 7. The Post's servers went offline for a short period that day due to the surge in web traffic.[4] This story would later be one of the articles for which Fahrenthold received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.[15]

[free thoughtpolice]

The DNC leaks were also not an intrusion into a government arm. Parties are private organizations, like the Pit itself. The owner of the DNC is not a political actor. He or she just runs the club. That club was allowed to collect money from people while lying about how it operates.

I don't know how to respond to that. :drool:

[shoutinghorse]

Slightly off topic (but not completely). this "gender swap" of US presidents is doing the rounds.
27867527_10215691997475596_1716043307416757586_n.jpg

-

:?

[Really?]

And if we think leaks are unethical, then surely we oppose the calculated release of the long buried grabembythepussy tape and those pages of Trump's tax returns, right? And the Wikileaks that illustrated the evil we were doing abroad. Also bad?

Leaks aren't necessarily illegal. Stealing information is, such as hacking. If those tapes about pussy grabbing were stolen, that would be bad. As it was, they were the property of a corporation that had news divisions. It wasn't foreign intelligence stealing private communications.

Publication[edit]
According to Access Hollywood, the discovery of the video was prompted by "Mr. Trump's denial of claims contained in an Associated Press story in which 20 former Apprentice employees described Mr. Trump's behavior toward women as lewd and inappropriate."[10] An NBC source said that an Access Hollywood producer remembered the conversation on Monday, October 3, and located it in the show's archives.[4][11] The celebrity news website TMZ reports a different chronology: when top executives at NBC learned about the video, they thought it was too early in the presidential campaign season to release it with maximum effect, and (according to TMZ) those executives publicly said they learned of the video long after they actually learned about it.[12][13]

NBC discussed whether to release the tape and had lawyers review the legality of the publication, as is common among other news media due to the possibility that the involved parties might file a lawsuit if the video was released.[5] By Tuesday, October 4, NBC had drafted a story that it declined to broadcast for another three days.[5][14] On Friday, October 7, at around 11 a.m., an unidentified source gave a copy of the tape to Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold, who contacted NBC for comment, notified the Trump campaign that he had the video, obtained confirmation of its authenticity, and released a story and the tape itself by 4 p.m.[3][4] Alerted that the Post might release the story immediately,[4] NBC News released its own story "mere minutes" after the Post story was published.[7]

By that evening, the Post's story had become "the most concurrently viewed article in the history of the Post's website" with more than 100,000 people reading it on the afternoon of October 7. The Post's servers went offline for a short period that day due to the surge in web traffic.[4] This story would later be one of the articles for which Fahrenthold received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.[15]

If you believe it was unfair for Hillary to lose votes because people found confirmation that she rigged the primary, that the party was corrupt, that there was daily reinforcement that Hillary is a shady liar who thinks rules and laws are for others, then I think it is strange to say, "by golly, that incriminating information about the person who wanted to be president should remain private because I don't like the source.". Fuck that. When Hillary fucked around in the Hamas election, did we care? When she fucked that duly elected leader in Honduras?

Hillary is no different from any other crybully SJW. She expected something for nothing and she can't take her own medicine.

And I think it is ironic that the pussy tape won a Pulitzer. Maybe they should have devoted that energy to building the case and the public support to charge the Bush administration for war crimes or the wall street fucks for screwing the economy and the lower classes or the quid pro quo relationship between lobbyists and politicians. But no. The retarded Democrats think if they shout "pussygrabber" enough times, then Hillary magically becomes president. Which would mean a bona fide rapist would be moving into the White House.

[Brive1987]

So. I watched Black Panther yesterday. This is a no spoilers review.

It was a typical Marvel superhero movie, with all the bells and whistles one expects. The actors were good and the dynamics between them generally worked.

The opportunity to create a truly powerful and seditious movie was lost because of some sloppy lines, character development, and (probably) editing. The flags were planted in the ground, but then left hanging, as if the slogan was enough.

I wouldn't have known whether the director was black or white from the movie, but I certainly knew that he was American, of the US variety.

All very good. But did you apologise to 'boy' for taking his seat?

https://shariaunveiled.files.wordpress. ... esized.jpg

[free thoughtpolice]

Really? If the RNC emails are made public. Trumps mysterious tax returns made public. all of Trumps public and private emails get scrutinized. The same for clinton or the next dem candidate. I'm for full disclosure and it has to be done equally to both sides.
Also, Trump testifying to clear up the mess. Get it all out in the open and over with . Fuck the trying to attack the investigators. Why not tell the truth and get the facts out. Bannon has gone before congress and only agreed to answer questions that the white house approved. If you think it's the right thong to get the truth out then you must agree that Trump should be more open, allow to see all their communications.
What is right for 1 side should go for the other, no?

[Really?]

Really? If the RNC emails are made public. Trumps mysterious tax returns made public. all of Trumps public and private emails get scrutinized. The same for clinton or the next dem candidate. I'm for full disclosure and it has to be done equally to both sides.
Also, Trump testifying to clear up the mess. Get it all out in the open and over with . Fuck the trying to attack the investigators. Why not tell the truth and get the facts out. Bannon has gone before congress and only agreed to answer questions that the white house approved. If you think it's the right thong to get the truth out then you must agree that Trump should be more open, allow to see all their communications.
What is right for 1 side should go for the other, no?

I would be for full disclosure, too. The difference is that everyone, including Trump supporters, know that Trump and the GOP are full of shit. The mainstream news broadcasts this every day. Academia spreads the word every day. The media and academia done fucked up by pushing moderates to alternative news and snuggling the Democratic party into a soft and warm bubble.

Trump voters, especially moderates, knew Trump is full of shit and grabs pussy. The Dems made the mistake of shitting on moderates and progressives and making the decision about identity politics instead of the economy.

Hillary, on the other hand, had paid trolls to shit on you if you pointed out her bullshit. No....Hillary has always been against the TPP. She has always been in favor of gay marriage. And how dare you question the election results?!?!! How irresponsible!

Americans chose the honest liar over the sociopath liar who thinks you are too retarded to see through her bullshit.

[free thoughtpolice]

Somewhat apropo... a documentary shot on the various espionage techniques used by certain unnamed adversaries:

[katamari Damassi]

Clinton's own "basket of deplorables" speech probably had more effect than all the ads the Russians bought (less so than emails, maybe, but still).

Picking Lena Dunham of all people to do campaign outreach in North Carolina, underestimating Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, overestimating the gap in her favor in Florida, having a badly thought out campaign slogan and campaign platform, the "let them learn code" plan for former coal extraction employees, etc., were all mistakes that Clinton made.

It's good for the US to look into what happened about the leaked emails from a national security perspective, but the Clinton fans who think that Russia stole what was rightfully hers are pathetic.

Her husband tried to warn her and he was completely disregarded. I wouldn't be surprised if he was told to stop mansplaining the election.

Unless the Russians hacked voting machines then this is a non-issue.

[Really?]

Somewhat apropo... a documentary shot on the various espionage techniques used by certain unnamed adversaries:

Was Natasha the one the DNC paid for the information they fed to the US intelligence agencies to investigate Queen Hillary's political adversaries?

But seriously, I don't care about Trump. Put him on the stand. The problem with that is that he is not as smart as Bill Clinton and will get caught in a million perjury traps. They probably won't get Trump for "collusion," but Donald is too dumb and arrogant to know when to keep his mouth shut. Within ten minutes, they will catch him in a dozen contradictions about things unrelated to Russia.

[katamari Damassi]

A friend of mine who's a comic book nerd saw Black Panther today and gave it a "meh" review. He didn't think it was bad, he just thought it could've been so much better.
His main problem with it is that it just wasn't as fun as the other MCU movies.

[Guest_d2e60302]

So I have no idea if Mueller is just getting started, but it seems reasonable to think this may be his Comey/Lynch moment, where he goes after the Russkies and drops further investigation into Trump.

This could occur regardless of whether Mueller thinks Trump guilty and whether Trump is guilty.

This would sort of be the classic place in most political investigations where "the crooked politicians get off as usual", or where an honest investigator says "there's nothing more there, there was no evidence of anything there, just the opposite".

Anyway, this is a prediction that should Mueller basically stop the investigation into Trump at this point, there will be a huge outcry of Mueller has sold us down the river, we knew we couldn't trust him.

[Really?]

So I have no idea if Mueller is just getting started, but it seems reasonable to think this may be his Comey/Lynch moment, where he goes after the Russkies and drops further investigation into Trump.

This could occur regardless of whether Mueller thinks Trump guilty and whether Trump is guilty.

This would sort of be the classic place in most political investigations where "the crooked politicians get off as usual", or where an honest investigator says "there's nothing more there, there was no evidence of anything there, just the opposite".

Anyway, this is a prediction that should Mueller basically stop the investigation into Trump at this point, there will be a huge outcry of Mueller has sold us down the river, we knew we couldn't trust him.

But...I thought this investigation, just like the one into Hillary, into MLK, into John Lennon, was absolutely free of politics. The FBI and DOJ would never try to influence politics. These are career professionals, regardless of whether they or their wives or their friends have received shitloads of totally legal donations and other assistance in kind.

No politician, short of fucking preteen boys, gets in trouble because they are all squeaky clean.

[free thoughtpolice]

[TheMudbrooker]

So I have no idea if Mueller is just getting started, but it seems reasonable to think this may be his Comey/Lynch moment, where he goes after the Russkies and drops further investigation into Trump.

This could occur regardless of whether Mueller thinks Trump guilty and whether Trump is guilty.

This would sort of be the classic place in most political investigations where "the crooked politicians get off as usual", or where an honest investigator says "there's nothing more there, there was no evidence of anything there, just the opposite".

Anyway, this is a prediction that should Mueller basically stop the investigation into Trump at this point, there will be a huge outcry of Mueller has sold us down the river, we knew we couldn't trust him.

I have to disagree that this is being run as a political investigation, Meuller is running this like a textbook racketeering investigation. First bust some street level guys like Papawhateverthefuck, get him to cooperate for a few months then let it be known he's been flipped. If you see one rat, you have a dozen so the higher ups don't know who can be trusted among the soldiers. Next go after some mid-level guys like Flynn and Manafort. Flynn was smart and pled out right away. I'm betting these indictments are meant to squeeze Manafort. His trial starts in a couple months, at the moment he's charged with financial crimes he's not likely to get out of but he's not likely to do a lot of time for them either. But if it turns out he has even second or third hand connections to those indicted today it opens a whole new world of shit for him. The big money world in Russia Manafort operated in is a small one, so it's likely that some connection will be found. Faced with the prospect of many years in prison, will Manafort fall on his sword to protect the boss or will he roll over? If Manafort rolls, things get pretty grim for the inner circle players like Don Jr. and the Son-in-law.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If you believe it was unfair for Hillary to lose votes because people found confirmation that she rigged the primary

Hillary didn't rig the primary. Don't be a fucking retard.

[Guest_d2e60302]

I have to disagree that this is being run as a political investigation, Meuller is running this like a textbook racketeering investigation. First bust some street level guys like Papawhateverthefuck, get him to cooperate for a few months then let it be known he's been flipped. If you see one rat, you have a dozen so the higher ups don't know who can be trusted among the soldiers. Next go after some mid-level guys like Flynn and Manafort. Flynn was smart and pled out right away. I'm betting these indictments are meant to squeeze Manafort. His trial starts in a couple months, at the moment he's charged with financial crimes he's not likely to get out of but he's not likely to do a lot of time for them either. But if it turns out he has even second or third hand connections to those indicted today it opens a whole new world of shit for him. The big money world in Russia Manafort operated in is a small one, so it's likely that some connection will be found. Faced with the prospect of many years in prison, will Manafort fall on his sword to protect the boss or will he roll over? If Manafort rolls, things get pretty grim for the inner circle players like Don Jr. and the Son-in-law.

I'm not saying how it actually is being run, I am saying that any step Mueller takes now, regardless of how it is being run, will be tarred with "politics".

That's a pretty trivial statement for this investigation, so my point is that he could honestly be done, because there was no chargeable collusion, and my totally speculative, I have no clue, wild ass guess suggests that's a 30% probability, but if he were to conclude, right now, Russians in hand, we would see the FBI is our saviors crowd, do a 180.

And that was my point, my general disgust with the FBI is our saviors crowd. I am not some anti-FBI person, but it's news to me when the Democrats became the party that trusted everything to the FBI handling everything right.

As to how it is actually being run, I am no prosecutor and wish to stay miles away, by Andrew McCarthy, who was, says he thinks the way Flynn was charged runs counter to the many theories that Flynn is at one end of a chain of dominos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959)[1] is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[2][3][4] A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... estigation

After Flynn pled guilty, I argued that this showed Mueller did not have a collusion case. If he did, he would have forced Flynn to plead guilty to some kind of criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and Russia, and had Flynn implicate his Trump World coconspirators in the course of allocuting in court. Instead, Flynn pled out to a mere process crime, giving Mueller a scalp but not much else.

Read the rest of his article, that part I quoted is actually him quoting from an even earlier article of his, and the rest of the article is his current thoughts (though he's not retracting at all the earlier part)

[Lsuoma]

A slight change of topic. The phenomena that is political dynasties that occurs in the US and Canada at least (I'm not sure if this as bad in Yurp) is poison to democracy. We have second Trudeau in power in Canada that is mainly there because of his last name. The Conservatives have Carolyn Mulroney, daughter of ex disaster PM Lyin' Brian as a contender for their leadership.
In the US you have the Kennedy family, the Bushes, the Clintons.
Wasn't a linchpin of modern democracy getting rid of passing power through hereditary lines?

Read this - it's full of win.

[Kirbmarc]

A slight change of topic. The phenomena that is political dynasties that occurs in the US and Canada at least (I'm not sure if this as bad in Yurp) is poison to democracy. We have second Trudeau in power in Canada that is mainly there because of his last name. The Conservatives have Carolyn Mulroney, daughter of ex disaster PM Lyin' Brian as a contender for their leadership.
In the US you have the Kennedy family, the Bushes, the Clintons.
Wasn't a linchpin of modern democracy getting rid of passing power through hereditary lines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

[MacGruberKnows]

Show me a video called something like "Good Star Trek Props". Oh, it doesn't exist, I wonder why. I mentioned close to a year ago that I click-baited a ST thing and one of it's 'unknown facts' was that when they needed an earth town they used the Mayberry set from Andy Griffith and could not even be bothered to redo the 'Floyd the Barber' sign.

http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/pos ... 6249-1.jpg

So I call that a bad prop too.

For bonus points, who is Kirk's lady of interest in real life?

[MacGruberKnows]

Floyd says hi BTW:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-27EdiCQ8Dgg/U ... /floyd.jpg

[Lsuoma]

A slight change of topic. The phenomena that is political dynasties that occurs in the US and Canada at least (I'm not sure if this as bad in Yurp) is poison to democracy. We have second Trudeau in power in Canada that is mainly there because of his last name. The Conservatives have Carolyn Mulroney, daughter of ex disaster PM Lyin' Brian as a contender for their leadership.
In the US you have the Kennedy family, the Bushes, the Clintons.
Wasn't a linchpin of modern democracy getting rid of passing power through hereditary lines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

Derivative (acknowledged) of the book I linked.

[Kirbmarc]

Her husband tried to warn her and he was completely disregarded. I wouldn't be surprised if he was told to stop mansplaining the election.

That too. With so many SocJus fans hanging around Democratic circles and spewing their slogans and thought-terminating cliches there's a real risk that other real issues, risks and problems might be swept under the carpet because they're not PC or because the criticism is voiced by an Evil White Man.

There's a widespread opinion among many in the left that White Hetero Cis Men are The Problem, and (more recently) that White Hetero Cis Women are also The Problem. That's not a winning strategy in most of the US.

Indeed if we take a very summary analysis entirely based on percentages of white non-hispanic population, "Down with the Whites" is only potentially a winning strategy in California, Hawaii, New Mexico, the District of Columbia and potentially Texas. In the rest of the US the Democratic Party needs Honkey McHonkerson in order to win.

Now I'm pretty sure that the DNC is not as stupid and counterproductive as the online SocJus fans like Peezie Myers. But there are some disturbing trends towards purity tests, ideological lockstep (for example one of the members of Clinton's staff called Bernie Sanders "sympathetic to white supremacy" for daring to question the concept of ethnic quotas in politics) and in general a wide support for identity politics, especially in face of Trump pandering to white identity politics and trolling the media and the internet with his endless list of distraction and idiocy, to which everyone feels forced to response, sometimes in counterproductive ways.

I'm pretty sure that the Democratic Party will still be able to win Oregon, or Washington, or Vermont, or Rhode Island, or Massachussets, despite the fact that those places are so full to the brim with Evil Whites. I'm less confident that in the current climate where concrete economic and social policies seem to be overshadowed by ideology they'll be able to win back Ohio, or Iowa, or Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. I'm actually worried that the Dems might even relatively give up on those states in an attempt to win the big prize of Texas.

[Kirbmarc]

So Hillary won the popular vote because she creamed a limited number of high population, high liberal centres?

This runs against the common theme that there was a fairly uniform love-in for Hillary, with a couple of Nazi exceptions, resulting in a won popular vote lost due to EC technicalities.

If the former is true, then bravo the EC in 2016.

So Hillary won the popular vote because she creamed a limited number of high population, high liberal centres?

This runs against the common theme that there was a fairly uniform love-in for Hillary, with a couple of Nazi exceptions, resulting in a won popular vote lost due to EC technicalities.

If the former is true, then bravo the EC in 2016.

Clinton saw increases of votes in places that were already overwhelmingly liberal (California and New York) and made some progress in Arizona, Georgia and Texas (which she lost, but getting more votes than Obama). However she did VERY badly in the Rust Belt. Losing roughly 1.3 million votes between Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota (which she won, but by a far smaller margin than Obama did) and Pennsylvania is nothing to sneeze at.

The reality is that the election was neither a Hillary love-fest nor a big party for Trump. Instead what's going on is a polarization of the US, with liberal places and liberal demographics trending more and more Democratic, and conservative places and conservative demographics trending more and more Republican.

[Kirbmarc]

Elections are usually won by getting the people who will always vote for you to get out of their homes and vote, and by capturing a substantial part of the independent and the undecided. Both Clinton and Trump, and so both the Dems and the GOP, seem to have consolidated their base among their uber-fans, and have gotten them motivated to vote, so the electoral battle becomes about convincing the independent, the moderates, the undecided, etc.

You know, the kind of voters that uber-partisans like PZ Myers call "chickenshit", "uninformed", "ignorant", etc. etc.

The Trumpists have one and only one advantage: the alienating behavior of the SocJus. Trump is a dumpster fire, and his rabid fans are often loons, but the Dems seem to be pandering to people who are toxic to any attempt to get undecided people to vote for the Democrats. Hell, those people are toxic to the Democratic Party progressives, too, just look at what happened to Al Franken.

The worse part is that no one in the Democratic Party elite seems to have the balls to come out and say to the SocJus fans that they're being counterproductive, or even that they should tone down some of their rhetoric. Those who try, like Sanders timidly did, are instantly called "alt-right" or "white supremacists".

Public thought leaders who are very liberal but critical of the SocJus, like Bill Maher or Steven Pinker or Sam Harris, are called shitlords or alt-right, and pretty much everyone in the Dem circles is just too scared of the social media blowback or too ideological to listen to their criticism, or even to defend them.

Also many seem to underestimate the right-wing. There are some genuinely clever people in the "alt-right", despite their ethical or moral or personal failings. Bannon for example might be a trainwreck on a personal or professional level, but he has been smart enough to notice that as long as the focus is kept on race and gender shenanigans the Dems seem ready to eat each other or pander to the loons and make asses of themselves.

So the Dems should be smarter, too, instead of trying to appease the crowds of Twitterati who demand the end of toxic masculinity and toxic whiteness.

[Brive1987]

The Horde is busy engineering an 1848 social reformation in ........ Wankanda.

Why shouldn’t such a technologically advanced culture as Wakanda also have sophisticated political arrangements? Given the fact that the Wakandans all possess a very high level of education and societal awareness in the later incarnations of the source material, why not go for a system of direct democracy, where advanced Wakandan technology and well ordered social systems allow for important issues of policy to be settled by a direct plebiscite?

[Brive1987]

Direct plebiscite will get a rousing endorsement from the Mytilenians.

[Kirbmarc]

The Horde is busy engineering an 1848 social reformation in ........ Wankanda.

Why shouldn’t such a technologically advanced culture as Wakanda also have sophisticated political arrangements? Given the fact that the Wakandans all possess a very high level of education and societal awareness in the later incarnations of the source material, why not go for a system of direct democracy, where advanced Wakandan technology and well ordered social systems allow for important issues of policy to be settled by a direct plebiscite?

Hillary would have won Wakanda :bjarte:

[Brive1987]

a perfect match

[Kirbmarc]

Quote fail.

The Horde is busy engineering an 1848 social reformation in ........ Wankanda.

Why shouldn’t such a technologically advanced culture as Wakanda also have sophisticated political arrangements? Given the fact that the Wakandans all possess a very high level of education and societal awareness in the later incarnations of the source material, why not go for a system of direct democracy, where advanced Wakandan technology and well ordered social systems allow for important issues of policy to be settled by a direct plebiscite?

Hillary would have won Wakanda :bjarte:

[Keating]

At 5:23 Sargon says he's going to be debating Richard Carrier.

[Brive1987]

The first half of the Sam Harris /Russell Brand convo was a compelling clash of personalities. Before it wandered off into the spiritual.

I’m still trying to figure out who Brand is on the credibility front.

[shoutinghorse]

Show me a video called something like "Good Star Trek Props". Oh, it doesn't exist, I wonder why. I mentioned close to a year ago that I click-baited a ST thing and one of it's 'unknown facts' was that when they needed an earth town they used the Mayberry set from Andy Griffith and could not even be bothered to redo the 'Floyd the Barber' sign.

http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/pos ... 6249-1.jpg

So I call that a bad prop too.

For bonus points, who is Kirk's lady of interest in real life?

Joan Collins

[jugheadnaut]

Floyd says hi BTW:

[Brive1987]

.

At 5:23 Sargon says he's going to be debating Richard Carrier.

On a topic of Carriers choosing, Sargon would be toast. Maybe he could garnish it with a trail of mayo.

[Brive1987]

Kirb.

In my ethnostate this would never happen. I’m pretty happy at having now won our conversation.

[shoutinghorse]

Twice this cunt got deported and he still sneaked his way back in. Imagine a world with open borders. :x :doh:

https://i.imgur.com/N7P99qI.png

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... buser.html

[KiwiInOz]

So. I watched Black Panther yesterday. This is a no spoilers review.

It was a typical Marvel superhero movie, with all the bells and whistles one expects. The actors were good and the dynamics between them generally worked.

The opportunity to create a truly powerful and seditious movie was lost because of some sloppy lines, character development, and (probably) editing. The flags were planted in the ground, but then left hanging, as if the slogan was enough.

I wouldn't have known whether the director was black or white from the movie, but I certainly knew that he was American, of the US variety.

All very good. But did you apologise to 'boy' for taking his seat?

https://shariaunveiled.files.wordpress. ... esized.jpg

It was solely a white and Asian audience, on big recliner chairs.

[Really?]

If you believe it was unfair for Hillary to lose votes because people found confirmation that she rigged the primary

Hillary didn't rig the primary. Don't be a fucking retard.

I suppose you are right. It isn't as though she literally bought the party and had control over every decision it made or anything.

[screwtape]

A slight change of topic. The phenomena that is political dynasties that occurs in the US and Canada at least (I'm not sure if this as bad in Yurp) is poison to democracy. We have second Trudeau in power in Canada that is mainly there because of his last name. The Conservatives have Carolyn Mulroney, daughter of ex disaster PM Lyin' Brian as a contender for their leadership.
In the US you have the Kennedy family, the Bushes, the Clintons.
Wasn't a linchpin of modern democracy getting rid of passing power through hereditary lines?

Welcome to a world influenced far more than it should be by soap operas. Fictional story arcs generally involve (if successful) some kind of 'justice' in their denouements which often involve the true, but disinherited, heir finally coming into possession of his inheritance. Add a pinch of Grimm brothers, and a smidgeon of romanticised euro-monarchy (Thanks Netflix!) and there is a decided pressure to vote for a candidate who has a last name that has been in power before.

Whilst we pay attention to subliminals, I'll give you one for perusal that I don't consider true, but which certainly could be. Imagine a far more subtle than usual Russian influence on social media, which starts a hashtag that encourages a flood, an outpouring of pent-up resentment that just happens to be perfectly timed in a zeitgeist that was ripe for such. Maybe even one post, true/accurate/real or not, could start the avalanche. And perhaps it should. Just think of the right hashtag. Maybe #MeToo?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If you believe it was unfair for Hillary to lose votes because people found confirmation that she rigged the primary

Hillary didn't rig the primary. Don't be a fucking retard.

I suppose you are right. It isn't as though she literally bought the party and had control over every decision it made or anything.

She must have bought it after 2008, when the DNC did for real rig the primaries -- against her.

But you had to go there, didn't you ?