Slashdot Mirror

I guess that's why they had so many cases where people were suddenly "cut off" when they started talking about things that CNN considered forbidden. And they did so, so many times that it became a meme. As for CNN trying to shape the election? Remember their reporters(along with politico, nbc, and several other publications) getting caught sending drafts to the DNC? Then there were the other cases where they directly published stuff from the DNC. You can find those both in the wikileaks dumps. Then there was the case where someone under their employ(Donna Brazile) fed Clinton debate questions. Oh you bet your ass they tried to shape the election and got caught doing it.

The US on the other hand, interfered with so many European elections that it's scary. And Russian elections, and in Canadian elections, and Israeli, and, and, and, and....

Hey did you catch that bit about the Steele thing? You know where they're refusing to answer any questions regarding it to the senate intelligence committee? No? That's okay. It's not like something doesn't stink there.

...and it was never a crisis until a populist got elected POTUS and "online bullshit" found itself high on the list of the failed establishment candidate's excuses for losing.

Now the elites who suddenly fear that the commoner plebs might no longer vote how they want them to are trying to ministry-of-truth the internet because either A) they actually believe a few russian bots spreading "Fake News" on facebook that not even people with the appropriate biases believed influenced a measurable amount of voters, or B) "Fake News" is a conveniently broad and vague term that can just as easily be thrown at real news/opinion sites with the wrong biases as at news sites documenting the impending alien takeover of Dallas. At least once your friendly unbiased "fact" checkers at Snopes or WaPo give you cover.

> There is a pretty high correlation to trump supporters and people who argue against fact-checking. Just saying.

There's a pretty high correlation between lib-left (Clintons and Dems) and people who argue for internet gatekeeping... just saying.

The lib-left loves their lapdog MSM...
* The same lapdog MSM that kept quiet despite knowing that JFK was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could ever dream of.
* The same lapdog MSM that suppressed the story of Bill Clinton's sexcapades.

Actually, if the MSM had broken the Clinton/Lewinsky story, Matt Drudge would've remained a nobody. Instead, the Clinton/Lewinsky story proved that the MSM couldn't be trusted, and that "alternate media" (e.g. Drudge Report) was more reliable at times. The MSM have only themselves to blame for people trusting alternate media more than MSM.

Just as they love their lapdog MSM, the lib-left hate/fear "alternate media". http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that
> had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Like husband, like wife; fast-forward to 2016... http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a
> fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

Name a media outlet that was silent on the Susan Rice story. I'll wait...

CNN? MSNBC? They also have pulled a CNN.

... Unmasking isn't something she can do without asking permission from the relevant intelligence agency.

Then I'm sure you can answer how she was able to unmask without the permission of those agencies then, since the order appears to have come directly from her. Or the fact that she ordered detailed spreadsheets on specific people in the Trump camp. This of course is also while she claimed she didn't do it. I'm going to note that DC isn't the only site that has made this claim either, so has the WSJ and Bloomberg.

Impossible. The AGW experts(and media, and talking heads) have been telling us for decades, that the sun(aka solar changes) have no impact. None. That they're fully completely and absolutely unproven. Enjoying the "denier" camp yet? Don't question the orthodoxy citizen. And remember: If you're not having a book burning, you're not a true believer. (Courtesy of the House Democrats) Strange, I thought it was Republicans and conservatives who were the "anti-science" and "anti-free speech" party.

when we started cutting all the federal funds. They warned about this in the 90s when the cuts started and everybody said it wouldn't matter because salaries would be so high to compensate. Meanwhile we've still got folks spreading the already disproved lies that it's all because of fancy dorms and rich teachers. Yeah, a few nasty little diploma mills were taking advantage of the loan programs. The last administration shut that down. Of course, I'm not expecting the current administration to be so student friendly...

We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming. Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.

We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch of frozen crops, famine, disease, plague, and death.

We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.

Our current conditions are not identical to the MWP. The current rate of warming is much faster than during the MWP and it's likely that globally temperatures are warmer now than they were back then.

We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.

There has been some recent research that indicates the main cause of the Little Ice Age was a series of large volcanic eruptions in the 1200s. The Maunder Minimum may have exacerbated the LIA some but probably wasn't a primary cause.

We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.

We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.

Woah dude! What have you been smoking? I am talking about the actual news. Take a look:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspe...

And here is the definition of false flag:

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

Two people responsible for the hundreds of threats against Jewish community centers, synagogues, and cemeteries as well as destruction of property, etc. The second link reveals this Jewish guy is responsible for threats all over the world, not just in the US. The media pushed hard for this story to be part of the "racists and anti-semites following Trump and Bannon, emboldened and galvanized into action, blah blah blah." Turns out it was the farthest thing from.

That doesn't preclude the Trump supporters or organization from doing the same thing with stirring up dissent, which was my point. Create a crisis, capitalize on it. You know, a page out of ol' Saul's book. Jesus, I keep forgetting how incredibly stupid you are. Don't try to figure out what this means, it will only confuse you.

I don't even know what the fuck the elders of Zion is, I'm just quoting the news, the Israeli police, and US justice department. What kind of filters are you running in your cortex that has you off on such a tangent? You need to clean them out, they're toxic and you can't see reality because of what you have overlaid on your perceptions.

Finally and most importantly, I don't have a "team." I am decidedly not one of you, if you will pardon the expression, fucking stupid morons that think a political party is going to save them. I don't play that game and I certainly don't see either party serving my interests or representing me in the slightest. So, yeah, keep on with your presupposed opposition, preconceived notions, and crazy internal monologue. If it helps you make enemies and completely misunderstand the world around you then I guess its working as you hoped?

1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall

SOURCE ? link to scientific journal please ?

He can't do that, because the above points are copy-pasta of half-truths:

• 1) In an Independent article the author says that snow is a thing of the past, and that he quotes some scientists who say that if global warming continues snow will become a rare occurrence. No dates attached to the scientist's predictions.
• 2) In a Guardian UK article in 2004, unnamed "experts" predicted that the Scottish ski industry had about 20 years left before it died. For the math challenged, that prediction won't be testable for another 7 years. The article points to some short-term trends that showed fewer ski days and fewer ski tickets. The article that the claims were copied from claims since there was a lot of snow this year, the Scottish Ski industry is saved forever.
• 3) This is one based off of something that Al Gore said, which was "Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next 5-7 years." There's a lot of qualifiers in there that get skipped when skeptics read that, they tend to ignore "Some of the models" and "75% chance" and claim that Al Gore said all the Artic would be ice free in 5 years. I'm pretty sure Dr. Maslowski further hedged his bet by prefacing it with "if the current trend continues", but what was actually said is less important than claiming it's wrong.
• 4) This one is references a Union of Concerned Scientists press release, which notes that we have been getting less snow in spring over the last decade and then talks about the kinds of environmental impacts those changes have. The article the claims were copied from notes that there was a record breaking snowstorm this year as a refutation of the entire press release.

Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.

What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators

I don't like to see Hillary selling access to foreign dictators, any more than I like her selling access to Bear Sterns and domestic corporations. I am not a Hillary fan.

Trump, however, did things like personally change the Republican platform from supporting arms to the Ukranian resistance to pro-Russian factions. At the same time Trump had business deals with Russians like the "Fertilizer king" which got him hundreds of millions of dollars. This was documented pretty well by Rachel Maddow and others http://www.politifact.com/trut... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/... and, if you prefer the other reality, even the Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...

So Trump was taking hundreds of millions of dollars from a country run by a dictator and adversary of the U.S., and he subsequently changed U.S. policies to favor that adversary and go softer on him (and defended Putin's killing of political enemies).

If he is serving the interests of a foreign adversary against the interests of his own country, because of his financial benefit, that's treason.

Hillary did something similar with her Clinton charity, Bear Sterns speeches, and other corporate favors. However, unlike Trump, she didn't take money from countries that were U.S. adversaries, but from "friendly" middle eastern dictatorships. And while I think that corporations like Bear Sterns are enemies of the American people, U.S. law doesn't support me on that.

Hillary sold out the working class (which should be a crime but isn't).

Trump sold out the whole country to a foreign enemy in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars laundered as business deals. That's treason.

a wuss who sits to pee like a woman

So you're against gender equality?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06...

The answer, since you're unwilling to look for yourself, is "no".

That's not how this works. How this does work: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you persist in being a lazy commenter, we'll move to the stage of the conversation where I casually assert that you like to have sex with farm animals in school playgrounds, since it's your now job to disprove the assertion made online. And while we're on the subject of debunking false narratives.....

Those emails, though

Yes, Hillary setting up a email server was a disastrous, corrupt, arrogant decision for her to make. Dems think they're making a great point with the "but her emails!" meme, but all you're doing is highlighting the fact that Hillary had no business running for dog catcher of the DNC, much less POTUS.

Two years after savaging the Bush Administration, "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts" she was doing the same damn thing herself. If that wasn't bad enough, she kept her server after Republicans took the Senate in the 2010 elections, who then had the power to subpoena her.

Dem's like to whine that the GOP smear machine has had it out for her for a quarter of a century, which is true. But then how dumb of a fuck did she have to be to hand them a real scandal, one that could still send her to prison. Warmed over Vince Foster bullshit no longer needed, now you can prosecute her dumb ass for mishandling classified evidence and obstruction of justice, when she deleted thousands of emails before her server could be inspected. And you can skip all the tired excuses for Hillary's unsecured, unauthorized server when a man is currently serving time for taking selfies on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.

If her name was Hillary Johnson, she'd already be in prison serving 20 years - for obstruction of justice charges alone. Then Dems have the nerve to whine about Comey, when they should be thanking him for not perp walking her into an arraignment.

I don't see the difference.

Was Pence dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of his day job?

Was Pence subject to federal FOIA laws as a state official?

Was Pence railing against secret email servers just two years before doing the same thing himself? Although AOL isn't exactly 'secret'.

because I'm a stupid lefty

Not necessarily stupid, but you sure do like false equivalencies.

Please, by all means David Thornley, show me with sourced references and clear logic where exactly I am "wrong on every point."

1 Observe - The earth has been warmer and cooler than it is now, with more CO2 in the atmosphere (we agree here)

2 Hypothesis - Humans must be destroying the world and bringing about the apocalypse

    -if the polar caps melt, climate change proponents claim that the sea level rise will be 230 feet, leading to mass starvation, wars over resources and land, basically the end of all civilization as we know it. Feel free to refute my statement with a facts of your own. Didn't you see An Inconvenient Truth by your spokesman Al Gore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If climate change is not the apocalypse, why should we give two shits about it or spend $500B a year to combat it?

3 Mathematical model - Create mathematical models that have been proven wildly inaccurate without exception for the last 25 years; engage in incestuous consensus, conduct a witch hunt for any who disagree, shout down any opposing theories by claiming majority rule regardless of their scientific merit

- This is not libel and is easily searchable. Here is a nice graph of predicted vs actual global temperatures for the last 30 years vs 90 different climate models. As you can clearly see, they are nearly all way off high from the actual temperatures. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
You might want to, you know, learn something before you call other people names.

4 Conclusion - AGW is right and is the apocalypse, everyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a shill for fossil fuels (pretty sure you made this point already yourself with your personal attacks) Also, one of your biggest supporters, Bill Nye is quite vocal on this topic: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02...

The sad truth is that global warming/climate change is no longer about science, it is about orthodoxy, conformity and grants for "scientists", it is about manipulation and power for the politicians, and it is about feeling intellectually and morally superior for the unwashed masses who in most cases have no more than a high school level education in the physical sciences and only know what they have been spoonfed. Notice that nowhere in there is actual science where hypotheses are continually being made and challenged and are furthered by peer review and debate.

Further, the steps above are exactly what the global warming crowd call science, and as I showed in my prior post, it is clearly not the scientific method. It may be based in physics, but climate science isn't science, it is climate modeling or climate simulation, but those names are not as catchy and don't sound as authoritative.

Side note: I do thermal design for a living and create very complex closed form and FDA models of thermal systems, but after the models, I always build and test, as that is the only way to be sure that your model is accurate. Climate scientists don't/can't do this testing at any faster than realtime, and so far their realtime testing has not been favorable for their thermal models.

She used a private email server for precisely one reason. She's old and she doesn't understand technology.

Then how did she end up with a private email server in the first place? You think a State Department employee is going to risk a sentence in federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary for mishandling classified evidence of his own volition?

This excuse dog doesn't hunt. A mere two years after savaging the Bush Administration for using private email servers, she was doing the same thing herself.

So, either:

1) Hillary was a corrupt hypocritical hack full of hubris
2) Hillary displayed a level of competence such that she could be trusted only to stock the State Department Keurig machine. And frequently she would fuck up and order the decaf.

Pick one. Either way, she had no business being a Senator, much less SOS, much less POTUS.

AC conspiracy-mongering aside, we do know for a fact that he didn't share top secret information over his personal email for the profoundly simple reason that he wouldn't have had a top secret clearance [voanews.com] at the time.

Nothing clinton shared originated from her either. It came from Sidney Blumenthal who wasn't even a government employee, he didn't have a clearance either. Everybody lost their shit that clinton was part of an email chain that included stuff from blumenthal. If that made her guilty, then Pence could easily be just as guilty too.

I don't think women EVER wanted to be cat called and hollered at- and they still don't.

Are you sure about that?

-jcr

The unemployment rate has been on a steady decline for the last 6 years.

That Fake News was form when they were trying to get Obama and Hillary elected. What has been dropping is the number of unemployed looking for jobs, once they gave up and stopped looking they no longer add to the unemployment rate...

Most people know better, including Sanders...

If the REAL unemployment rate were actually dropping, Trump would not have been elected.

The "good" news is that now with a Republican in power the media will start reporting the real unemployment rate, which we will start to see dropping in about a year (once all the people who had stopped looking start again causing a momentary rise in the unemployment rate).

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01...

Again, you and the article make it sound like something was actually deleted. First of all, even in the article it says the tech wasn't asked to delete anything by Clinton, so even if he did it wouldn't be her crime. That said, from the actual FBI report it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong. The report just documents every time e-mail was deleted in the audit logs including temporary and duplicate copies of data.

The quotes in the article are reworded and rearranged from the actual FBI report. I don't know why they don't match exactly. It is also combining different parts of the report to create a different impression. The actual text referenced about the archive deletion is on page 25 of part 3 of the FBI report and other parts of the quotes are from page 103. The actual FBI report just says "However, [] believed he had an "oh shit" moment and removed the HRC Archive mailbox. He also changed the mailbox retention policy from 30 days to 1 day, and cleaned the mailbox database because MILLS previously requested in late 2014 or early 2015 he change the retention policy for CLINTON and ABEDIN's existing and outgoing email to 60 days. He removed the HRC Archive mailbox manually because all content in the mailbox was older than 60 days." Although if you read the surrounding text you learn that the HRC Archive mailbox was a duplicate copy of old e-mails and they were retained elsewhere. I really don't have an explanation what the tech was doing other than trying to make it seem like the server was configured the way it had supposed to be (maybe to cover himself not having configured it the way he had been asked?). He didn't actually destroy anything that wasn't available elsewhere from what I can tell. The FBI report says the duplicate archive was deleted between March 25, 2015 and March 31, 2015 and the preservation order from the FBI was July 31, 2015 so it occurred before the FBI order. I don't see reference to the House Benghazi Committee preservation order in that section of the FBI report. Even if it was under the House Committee retention, it doesn't look malicious. The FBI report notes quite a number of temporary e-mail files that were deleted and that during a retention order even temporary files should be preserved, but that no data was actually lost when the temporary files were deleted. This indicates more of ignorance on the part of the tech than criminal activity.

In part 4 of the report page 4, it seems like the conclusion reached was that Bleachbit was used to destroy temporary "vehicle" .pst files, "but the e-mail content still existed."

As far as breaking the law, if you read up on 18USC1924 "Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material" you will find that even though the way the law is written for a layman doesn't sound like intent matters (although the word intent is used), existing case law like the supreme court case Gorin v. United States have established that intent is required to prosecute. The supreme court ruled that “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States” is required. Negligent handling of classified information is generally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act and Clinton was not in the military.

https://warontherocks.com/2016...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

... I also don't see the fast food workers going anywhere in the next 20 years.

McDonalds is already in the process of automating their stores. For example see . Where I live, the McDonalds already has automated ordering stations in place of people.

The past six presidents have all done it too.

See: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

Yeah, just as a careful surgical procedure is the same as gleefully applying a chainsaw to an innocent victim.

(But your honour, that leg may have had gangrene, you cannot be too careful with gangrene, the victim should be thankful to me.)

This ban is more like a firing a blast of double canister shot into a crowd of people at the county fair. As we have seen legal immigrants were turned away after being vetted for years, people were turned away who only wanted to attend weddings or visit relatives in the US, in one case a guy had to call off his wedding because the bride's visa was revoked, a bunch of UK school kids on a school trip to the US and who went there among other things to 'learn about US democracy' (irony abounds) had their visas revoked, Afghan and Iraqi staff who risked life and limb and those of their families while working for the US army as interpreters and intelligence staff are being sent back, and ironically enough Iraqi and Afghan air force pilots being trained to fly F-16 and A-29s in the US would be refused entry into the US under this blanket ban which has the Pentagon wanting all kinds of exemptions. So here are a couple of messages for the giant swarm of alt-right drones out there (not counting you mean pun :-) Firstly, I know you guys like to think of yourself as the 'politically incorrect people' and that you like to stick it to us 'politically correct pinkos' but blanket bans on entire groups of people based on their religion or ethnicity do little more than make you look like knuckle dragging bigots and it plays into the hands of ISIS. If your policies to fight ISIS are being applauded by ISIS it is time to eat a bit of crow, accept that you screwed up and extensively refactor your policies. Secondly, the fact that POTUS gets a xenophobia induced epileptic fit every time he comes with in 50 feet of a Muslim is not a justification for a blanket Muslim ban that will hold up in a court of law.

See: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

said every undocumented mexican immigrant never. The goal is to make a shit ton of money here and move back and live life like a king in a 3rd world shithole. A Hundred thousand goes a long way in some of these places.

That might be a "goal", but the reality is a bunch of empty overpriced homes in rural mexico that will likely be never occupied...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...

It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

Section 5 (b) of the executive order:
"Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

Considering every one of these countries are majority Muslim, this is indeed a religious thing.

Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting

And yet, more speak out in opposition.

some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban

Oh good. The countries who actually have originated people who commit terrorist acts on US soil in the past 40 years aren't upset because they weren't on the ban list. This makes the US safer how, again?

and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points

So polls by media outlets with a conservative lean that support your position are trustworthy, but all others are "fake news" put out by the "mainstream media". Just want to make sure I've got the logic sorted out here.

And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea

The act was invoked as a direct reaction to the civil war in Syria, the formation of ISIS, its subsequent offensive into Iraq, and the annexation of Crimea. All major regional events. The act was invoked this time to block entry by terrorists from countries with no recent major events. Technically the president has the power under the act to say, "only caucasian females with blonde hair weighing between 100 and 140 pounds may enter the US," but he still has to justify it.

Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

In the simplest terms, because executive orders that very blatantly do not help any of the things they say they are for are not a good thing.

Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

Well, that ended pretty predictably. At least the pro-Trump diehard posts are consistent in their straw man demonizing.

Speaking as someone who has spent thousands of dollars in legal assistance getting the appropriate visa in place allowing me to work in the US (but luckily am not from one of the countries in the executive order)... go fuck yourself. This isn't about American jobs, its about screwing over people you don't like and trying to win political points with morons.

People have spent years getting those visas. People may have even been living the in US for decades. This is not a moratorium on new visas, this is retroactively screwing people who have followed the process to get into the US legally.

I don't get it either.

The order does not affect people from other countries, it doesn't affect people from your country, and it specifically doesn't affect *you*.

It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

And the DHS has further clarified the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.

Furthermore, many countries don't allow immigration at all, and many other countries have onerous requirements to immigrate, so the US is not unusual in that regard. Obama banned immigration from Cuba, and Carter banned immigration from Iran with no fanfare.

The "no fanfare" bit - was that because Obama and Carter were Democrat? Or was there some other difference(*) that no one has noticed?

Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting, some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban, and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points.

Add in the fact that this is a temporary ban, that the order specifically directs the departments to sort it out, and that this was a campaign promise... it looks less like a fascist order and more like a reasonable and prudent order(*).

I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.

It rather looks suspiciously like an issue of convenience - something people can protest without actually caring about which side they're on.

Is it anything else?

Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

(*) And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

You vastly over-estimate Clinton's influence and power.

The press was by and large in the tank for Clinton. Whether it was newspaper owners holding fundraisers for her (Washington Post), or sending her releases of stories about her in advance for approval (Politico/New York Times), or sending her debate questions (CNN), the press in this country has demonstrated that they are not trustworthy to deliver unbiased news. These are only a few examples I can think off the top of my head. I'm sure the same shenanigans would have gone on even if Trump wasn't the GOP nominee.

They do allow hate speech and threats against other peoples lives. Twitters double standards on hate speech are well documented:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01...
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
http://www.truthrevolt.org/new...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
http://www.redstate.com/diary/...

When you get to define hate speech as speech that disagree with than everything quickly becomes hate speech.

Interesting that the article makes no mention of China's plans to build more nuclear power plants.
Found this with a quick Google search:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

China intends to bring 58 gigawatts of nuclear generating capacity into operation by 2020, up from the current capacity of roughly 27 gigawatts, according to World Nuclear News. China plans to follow this by getting about 10 percent of its electricity from 150 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2030, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Its also worth noting that 58 GW of nuclear capacity produces more electrical output than 250GW of solar or 150GW of Wind. So nuclear is the primary new clean air energy source in China's plans.

Interesting that the article makes no mention of China's plans to build more nuclear power plants.
Found this with a quick Google search:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

China intends to bring 58 gigawatts of nuclear generating capacity into operation by 2020, up from the current capacity of roughly 27 gigawatts, according to World Nuclear News. China plans to follow this by getting about 10 percent of its electricity from 150 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2030, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Why mention plans to reduce coal use, increase wind and solar use but not mention the plans to also increase the use of nuclear power?

There is a bias in all news. The bias is in not only what they choose to report but what they choose to leave out. I've begun to seek out news from places that wear their bias on their sleeve, that way at least I know what they likely chose to report and leave out.

Oooh, 'member all those petitions to secede that were put up on whitehouse.gov the last time Obama won? Yeah, I 'member.

They're pissed off because their near-monopoly of the lib-left newspapers, CNN (Clinton News Network), MSNBC (Most Socialist Network on Basic Cable), etc was easily bypassed. That's what cost Hillary the election.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing
> average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
3 years later, it happened. One of the "legacy gatekeepers", Newsweek was considering doing a story breaking the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. But management killed the story. Instead a lowly store clerk with a modem broke the story... you've heard of Matt Drudge http://www.drudgereport.com/ Hillary clinton's reaction was to whine about the lack of "gatekeepers".

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
What would've happened if Hillary had won?
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

And, whoever it was, there's no concrete indication of bias. It could be simply that the Rs didn't fall for phishing, had better secured systems, or there was nothing interesting there.

There's nothing to indicate any of the documents were manufactured. If the Ds hadn't done anything wrong, they wouldn't have been hurt by the leaks. When Brazile got caught unethically feeding debate questions to HRC, she lied about it, digging the hole deeper - perhaps she's a Manchurian operative of the Russians. It wasn't the Russians who put classified emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop. It wasn't the Russians who made HRC lie about the emails on her private server, or lie about deleting evidence which was under subpoena.

And, the press reporting is laughable. Donna Brazile:"They came after us absolutely every day until the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly." That went through the press with absolutely no critical commentary. Hell, I'm being targeted every day by dozens of attempts to hack in (primarily ssh). But I don't take it personally, or blame it on the Russians, or the Mexicans, or the Tadjikistanis, or the British, or the Koreans (actual sources of the most recent attempts). With no evidence presented, we're expected to take the word of the same "intelligent" people who claimed Saddam had WMD? It wouldn't surprise me that their secret evidence was no more than where the netblock of incoming hacking attempts was located. That means nothing.

Finally, there's no evidence that the influence on the election was any different than that of the political advertisements being run every day by candidates and PACs. If anything, it provided info which would have gotten a journalist positive recognition for bringing wrongdoing to light.

Yes, but the dispatcher would log the call and the content.

Yes. Now point to any reporting that there's no log of the call. You can't, because the incompetent TheDC reporter only looked for a "police report" or complaint, which is a written form (e.g., the complaint forms here).

Now Pfeiffer reports that there is a police report, but can't be bothered to sort out whether it's "formal report" or to explain why a police investigation has started.

And that will be the end of "police report"-gate, since complaining that he didn't file a police report within 24 hours won't get traction with anyone except the super deplorable.

So you dont have any evidence at all that a police report was filed...

Just this.

..but you defended the claim that one was, with dishonest misdirection... a fabrication...

I'm confused -- where did I claim that a police report was filed? You claim misdirection (the civil complaint), but then use "fabrication" (the police report was filed, or perhaps the civil complaint is fake). Those terms mean different things -- you're all over the map.

To be clear: I claimed that a civil complaint was filed. I also later said that there was no evidence that Eichenwald's wife had not "called the police to report the assault." It's all there in writing. Quote the fabrication. Quote the dishonesty.

Prove that a call was not made. Prove that a civil complaint was not filed. Deal with this self-contradictory mismash of bad reporting ("Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Tuesday that the department still does not have a formal report, but that detectives have been looking into the case since Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Monday that a police investigation cannot happen without a police report").

Your "media," at a minimum, reports that he filed something with the DPD that has them "looking into the case." What is your motive for being "intentionally honest" by altering the wife's claim to have called the police into one of having filed a police report, by ignoring TheDC when its reporting begins to run against your preferred narrative, and by ignoring the civil complaint?

If I look at your post history, will I find a lot of this behavior, or is it only now in this specific case that you had a motive to be dishonest?

Oh, scary. If I look at your post history, will I find that you're projecting?

So you dont have any evidence at all that a police report was filed...

Just this.

..but you defended the claim that one was, with dishonest misdirection... a fabrication...

I'm confused -- where did I claim that a police report was filed? You claim misdirection (the civil complaint), but then use "fabrication" (the police report was filed, or perhaps the civil complaint is fake). Those terms mean different things -- you're all over the map.

To be clear: I claimed that a civil complaint was filed. I also later said that there was no evidence that Eichenwald's wife had not "called the police to report the assault." It's all there in writing. Quote the fabrication. Quote the dishonesty.

Prove that a call was not made. Prove that a civil complaint was not filed. Deal with this self-contradictory mismash of bad reporting ("Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Tuesday that the department still does not have a formal report, but that detectives have been looking into the case since Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Monday that a police investigation cannot happen without a police report").

Your "media," at a minimum, reports that he filed something with the DPD that has them "looking into the case." What is your motive for being "intentionally honest" by altering the wife's claim to have called the police into one of having filed a police report, by ignoring TheDC when its reporting begins to run against your preferred narrative, and by ignoring the civil complaint?

If I look at your post history, will I find a lot of this behavior, or is it only now in this specific case that you had a motive to be dishonest?

Oh, scary. If I look at your post history, will I find that you're projecting?

there is no proof that he did call the cops

Oh fuck off. That's your issue, that the incompetent Tucker Carlson-lackey reporter didn't look for evidence of a call, and now Eichenwald must prove that that happened?

Which circles right back to the point of my first post: Eichenwald filed a verified complaint in court, for which there is proof, that none of you have an answer for. Which is precisely what someone wouldn't do if this was a hoax. Because perjury has an even greater potential penalty than filing a false police report.

"There's no proof that he did call the cops" -- "which anyone can bring on anyone" also -- so the deplorables pat themselves on the back and conclude that there's no way any of this happened. Too bad Twitter is going to give up their information without a fight, with proof of the message and the IP that submitted it, and the ISP will likely give up the subscriber information as well. Too bad merely sending the message would fall within Texas' definition of an assault. Too bad he can file a police report at any time up to the running of the statute of limitations, and did so.

Too bad the "call the cops" distraction is so irrelevant.

A civil suit is not a police report, and neither was filed 4 days ago when "his wife" made the claim.

"His wife" didn't make that claim. She wrote "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault." Did your "media" look for a call or merely a written complaint? Perhaps you and your "media" should both improve your reading comprehension.

FYI, a written compliant to the police was also reportedly filed yesterday.

This puts your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to shame.

They're both fine. The narrative is that his story is a hoax. You post's purpose was to continue the narrative that his story is a hoax. The filing of a verified complaint in court does indeed put the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame... where "this" is not merely your unsupported argument concerning a non-existent police report (i.e., phone call).

He could still be lying, but he'll have upped his game to filing a false police report and perjury. Those are reasonably large stakes, and beat "I bet it never happened" speculation from random deplorables in my book.

A civil suit is not a police report, and neither was filed 4 days ago when "his wife" made the claim.

"His wife" didn't make that claim. She wrote "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault." Did your "media" look for a call or merely a written complaint? Perhaps you and your "media" should both improve your reading comprehension.

FYI, a written compliant to the police was also reportedly filed yesterday.

This puts your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to shame.

They're both fine. The narrative is that his story is a hoax. You post's purpose was to continue the narrative that his story is a hoax. The filing of a verified complaint in court does indeed put the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame... where "this" is not merely your unsupported argument concerning a non-existent police report (i.e., phone call).

He could still be lying, but he'll have upped his game to filing a false police report and perjury. Those are reasonably large stakes, and beat "I bet it never happened" speculation from random deplorables in my book.

Somehow, viable Democrats (Bernie is really an Independent) seem to have stayed out of the primary this year. Its really strange, there was no Democratic incumbent running for re-election. There should have been a wide selection of viable candidates like in 2008, as happens all the time in non-incumbent years. But somehow, no big names but Hillary showed up. Yes there was the token opponent who mostly agreed with Hillary and said she would be a good President; and there was the Independent Bernie who re-registered to run as a Democrat. How was there not a contested field like in 2008?

Interestingly, the Wikileaks dump had this snippet about Joe Biden:

Ron Klain, a Democrat stalwart who served as chief of staff to Biden and Vice President Al Gore, sent an email to Podesta suggesting the Clinton campaign wasn’t sitting idly by while Biden was agonizing as to whether or not to stage a campaign for president, just months after the tragic death of his son Beau.

“It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise – and I am definitely dead to them — but I’m glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night,” he wrote to Podesta and Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri.

I make no judgement about this - it's how politics is done - but note that Joe Biden would probably have been a stronger opponent than HRC was.

I know this triggers cognitive dissonance, but Obama is, in fact, pro-fracking, much to the displeasure of his base. He does favor more regulation than the industry would prefer, including regulations on worker safety and environmental impact.

It boils down to this: while burning more fossil fuel is bad for climate change, the growth of natural gas is largely at the expense of coal. Natural gas emits only half the net CO2 per BTU that coal does.

Clinton's plan was actually pretty good in this respect: continue the shift from coal to natural gas, but to hedge her bets with renewable technologies, locating renewable-related jobs in areas losing coal jobs. That's not as favorable to the coal miners as bringing back the glory days of coal, but the those days just aren't coming back. By 2020 the cost to generate a given amount of electricity with coal will be almost 1/3 higher than generating the same amount with natural gas. Even if you threw out all the safety and pollution regulations they aren't coming back, because you'd have to make coal 1/3 cheaper per BTU than gas before it could compete economically with gas plants, which are more efficient and cheaper to operate. You'd have to cut the price of coal by more than 1/2.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.

Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".

Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)

Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?

Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?

I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.

It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.

1) any system allowing people to flag things as false news will be bias driven. "Oh, it says X is a liar, that's not true, so (flag)"!

2) Snopes? http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

Looking at the Alexa ranking of Slashdot over the past couple of months shows that readership has dropped precipitously. It started to slide around March, levelled out at a low pace throughout the summer, and took a nosedive right around the election.

During those months, many long-term readers took the trouble to post messages complaining about the political nature of the posts, and many of those also said "that's it - I'm leaving!".

It was clear during those months that many of the articles were partisan - mostly in favour of Clinton, but there were some that were pro Trump as well. The forum became nothing more than an anchor point for digs against Trump or Clinton.

This article is another example of this: it's a forum for people to wail about how awful Trump will be, because they can see the future with perfect clarity.

It's clear from context and evidence that people simply don't like this partisan bullshit, and are leaving the site in droves to avoid it. Whichever side you happen to be on, when you trash talk or support Trump you're alienating fully half the readership.

I would *think* that the editors should have a fiducial responsibility to see slashdot succeed, and looking at the Alexa history I would *think* that whiplash would step in and enforce a leadership vision that better navigates the shoals of politics.

I guess not.

The NYT showed a 96% drop in quarterly profits over the election season, very probably because of continuous partisan trash talking.

That's a huge drop in the profitability of a company, and should be a cloister bell for media in general: people simply don't like all this partisan bickering.

At the very least you're driving away half your readership.

Slashdot should focus on the technical and avoid emotionalism for the time being, at least until the election soreness has had a chance to calm down.

If Slashdot wants to succeed, that would seem to be the prudent move.

Bringing up 538 is pretty random. But since you did. He was the one pollster who consistently said that Trump had at least a 30% chance of winning.

trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton

nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

nate-silver-warns-media-against-dangerous-assumption-trump-isnt-really-closing-in-on-hillary

election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump

nate silver forecasts showing clinton with 99 chance of winning dont pass commonsense test

nate silver projects trump will win florida

nate silver 511 chance trump-winning-if-election-held-today

nate silvers terrifying-prediction prepare president-trump

election update as the race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton

Also, there is no such mentality in the progressive community to exclude whites in any way shape or form.

Do tell... That seems to be exactly how they create safe spaces and safe spaces and safe spaces and safe spaces and even safe spaces. They don't dare call it "segregation", it's just "safe spaces".

There is no white culture, but it's dominant. Okay, makes prefect sense.

Well, yes, the electoral will vote as indicated despite death threats because the trusted by both sides selects them.

Unfortunately, Hillary - despite her election rhetoric

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11...

Is going to be just as stupid as gore was

http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...

And Gosh, where did the money come from for the 1% green party to challenge the vote come from?