We need to talk about Donald: cursing and swearing allowed

[Brian Peacock]

Seems fair to me. The people deciding who should get the money shouldn't be the people getting the money - but of course, that's not what this is about is it?

[Animavore]

A reminder that supporting the Republicans is supporting scum.

[Forty Two]

You are tooting the conservative mantra

'This is a nothing burger': How conservative media reacted to the Mueller indictments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... dictments/


What dirty deals? All of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian ... _elections
In exchange for pee pee tapes

Well, it is a nothing burger, from the standpoint of Trump. Smells like vindication, actually. There better be something more coming, because if that's it, then there isn't even an impropriety.

Again, what dirty deals? "All of it" is not an answer, and neither is the link. What dirty deals? Identify a deal. Who made a deal with whom, for what?

[Animavore]

On the connection she sees between the trolls who targeted her and the Trump campaign

The trolls who targeted me grew into — directly into — the Trump campaign. Like, I see a straight line from those people to the current president. ...

When I first started getting aggressively trolled online it was because I wrote about stand-up comedians making rape jokes. And I was just deluged with hate — with really violent, reactionary hate — supposedly from just comedy fans trying to have a good time, and I was ruining their good time.

And the rhetoric that they were throwing at me was all about political correctness and free speech and silencing — men being silenced — and women being too sensitive, and people of color being too sensitive and social justice warriors. [It's] all of the same identical things that then, four or five years later, I hear Donald Trump say in a debate.

It's this idea of protecting the same status quo that's always protected Harvey Weinstein and has protected Donald Trump, and has allowed white men to maintain this death grip on power and influence and keep the rest of us subordinated. To me, I really feel like feminists — and especially black women on Twitter and other marginalized people — were really used as a training ground for what eventually became kind of the youth wing of the Trump campaign. They tested these tactics on us — the constant barrage of misinformation.

http://www.npr.org/2017/11/01/561350775 ... ent=202801

Have to agree with this. With Trump, and his shit supporters, it feels like all those worthless Trolls plaguing the internet comment sections the last few years, have come right out into the open.

[Forty Two]

Still, he didn’t change his tune. During a September 8 interview with RT, the Kremlin-controlled broadcaster that has been accused of disseminating fake news and propaganda, Trump discounted the Russian connection: “I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows, but I think it’s pretty unlikely.” (Yes, he did this on RT.) He repeated a similar line at the first presidential debate at the end of that month, with his famous reference to how the DNC hacker “could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”


Private experts and US intelligence had already determined that Russia had pulled off this caper. Trump had been told this. Yet he continued to deny Russia’s culpability, actively protecting Moscow.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... al-guilty/

They had not determined that "Russia had pulled off this caper." They had determined that in their view the methods used appear to be consistent with those of hacker groups that were associated in the past with the Russian government. That's a far different determination than "Russia pulled off the caper.

The gist of the Case Against Russia goes like this: The person or people who infiltrated the DNC’s email system and the account of John Podesta left behind clues of varying technical specificity indicating they have some connection to Russia, or at least speak Russian. Guccifer 2.0, the entity that originally distributed hacked materials from the Democratic party, is a deeply suspicious figure who has made statements and decisions that indicate some Russian connection. The website DCLeaks, which began publishing a great number of DNC emails, has some apparent ties to Guccifer and possibly Russia. And then there’s WikiLeaks, which after a long, sad slide into paranoia, conspiracy theorizing, and general internet toxicity has made no attempt to mask its affection for Vladimir Putin and its crazed contempt for Hillary Clinton. (Julian Assange has been stuck indoors for a very, very long time.) If you look at all of this and sort of squint, it looks quite strong indeed, an insurmountable heap of circumstantial evidence too great in volume to dismiss as just circumstantial or mere coincidence.

But look more closely at the above and you can’t help but notice all of the qualifying words: Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/her ... ot-enough/

...the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement blaming the Russian government for hacking the DNC. In it, they state their attribution plainly:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

What’s missing is any evidence at all. If this federal confidence is based on evidence that’s being withheld from the public for any reason, that’s one thing — secrecy is their game. But if the U.S. Intelligence Community is asking the American electorate to believe them, to accept as true their claim that our most important civic institution was compromised by a longtime geopolitical nemesis, we need them to show us why.

Our lawmakers and intelligence agencies are asking us to react to an attack that is almost military in nature — this is, we’re being told, “warfare.” When a foreign government conducts (or supports) an act of warfare against another country, it’s entirely possible that there will be an equal response. What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

It must be stated plainly: The U.S. intelligence community must make its evidence against Russia public if they want us to believe their claims. The integrity of our presidential elections is vital to the country’s survival; blind trust in the CIA is not. A governmental disclosure like this is also not entirely without precedent: In 2014, the Department of Justice produced a 56-page indictment detailing their exact evidence against a team of Chinese hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army, accused of stealing American trade secrets; each member was accused by name. The 2014 trade secret theft was a crime of much lower magnitude than election meddling, but what the DOJ furnished is what we should demand today from our country’s spies.

[Forty Two]

Trump is deregulating like a boss! https://fee.org/articles/trump-is-quiet ... he-things/

[Tero]

Trump is....Pizza! Skip both and use Pizza Hut...better pizza.
https://twitter.com/DearAuntCrabby/stat ... 6224946176

[Seabass]

Trump is....Pizza! Skip both and use Pizza Hut...better pizza.
https://twitter.com/DearAuntCrabby/stat ... 6224946176

Papa John's is shitty anyway. I'm a deep dish man. Fuck all that chain pizza. I like for my pizza to have enough tomato to drown a horse.

[Animavore]

A fucking moron through and through.

[Svartalf]

that's still interesting, I had good opinion of Papa John's until I read this... without ever trying it, of course, but from second hand accounts.

[Forty Two]

Diversity lottery is stupid. It is literally a lottery for green cards. Randomly selected people just get a green card. It's ludicrous.

Do other countries do that?

[Tero]

No. The refugees just walk in. ”Give me free room and board!”

This comes about from the fact that you have to fly to the US. Therefore the paperwork and visas.

[Scot Dutchy]

Never eat pizza. The best option. Any idea what is in them? The cheese is not even cheese.

Is your takeaway a fakeaway? Inspectors find two-thirds of High Street cheese and ham pizzas contain no cheese or ham

[Forty Two]

Ummm. wut?

Other countries don't have diversity lotteries because people don't have to fly to them?

Diversity lottery is not a refugee program. It's for anyone that applies, from anywhere.

[Tero]

It's all the same. There is a flow of people out of disturbed areas. Refugee and immigrant, all the same.