Slashdot Mirror

unfortunately, the tide is about to wash over us in this position...

I see what you did there.

I thought most businesses prefer to be paid in Tide anyway.

Why do they prefer to be paid in Tide?

Because it's too cold out Tide! #Dadjoke

The researchers also predict America will reach its Paris Climate Accord targets in 2020 -- five years early --

Yay! We're saved!

Whoops, what's that? The permafrost is melting? Did I say "saved"? I'm sorry. I meant boned. We are totally boned.

Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful. In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over

This is like that false salvation moment near the end of the movie, right before the giant bad thing stands up behind the heroes and smiles at them. It ain't gonna be that easy.

Sure, leaks are illegal. But, unless they are also considered wrong, people will keep doing them — for publicity or other aggrandizement, etc.

The constant harping on the US in general and the NSA in particular creates the perception, that hurting and embarrassing both somehow improves the world — a demonstrable falsehood.

Similarly, the worshiping of Snowden, who fully bought into the above-mentioned falsehood, and of Manning, who leaked the classified data not even to make the world a better place, but simply to impress acquaintances — make leaking glamorous even if still dangerous. And copy-cats follow.

This traitor-worship ought to stop. Even if you do (foolishly) believe, NSA is evil, you still can not betray the secrets entrusted to you — just as you would not murder, for example, to "raise awareness". Not only because it is illegal, but also because it is wrong.

Wait till Trumpcare fails. There's a reason they won't even tell their own Senators what is in it.

Hmm..."We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it"...where HAVE I heard that before?

In the lies and misrepresentations being told about what Nancy Pelosi ACTUALLY said?

IOW, so what else is new, other than which Party is trying to pass some sort of health-insurance reform without telling anyone what they're actually voting for?

Nothing has changed, the GOP is still hiding the truth from the American people. First they were lying about the contents of the Affordable Care Act so badly that Pelosi ACTUALLY said: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." because of their storm of lies but of course, the GOP continued that pattern of lies, and twisted that to claim to mean that somehow, people didn't have the ACTUAL bill to review and examine. But they did. It was published, and Representatives and Senators from both sides were regularly talking about it to the people.

So what Pelosi actually meant was rather the opposite of what the GOP claimed she said. And she wasn't unique, they did it with Obama and Clinton as well. Yet it has become a right-wing shibboleth, a mantra, repeated until the delusion is shared.

On the other hand, the GOP Senate is not revealing their own text to the public, they are not meeting with the public, and even their own are saying:

“No, nor have I met any American that has. I’m sure the Russians have been able to hack in and gotten most of it.”

“I’m very eager to see the language. I don’t think it gives enough time to thoroughly analyze the bill, but we’ll see when it comes out.”

"as far as I know the overwhelming majority of my colleagues haven't been able to see it either."

"It has become increasingly apparent in the last few days that even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill within this working group, it's not being written by us, it's apparently being written by a handful of staffers who are members of the Republican leadership in the Senate,"

The fact is, there are numerous quotes from GOP senators admitting they haven't had a part in writing the bill, not even a chance to read it. And they're timid, at best, in their objections to this secretive process. But they aren't able to deny what we already know. The sausage is being made, in secret, and they don't want us to see it.

Want me to find quotes from the House version of Trumpcare? It's the same story. Prevarications and lies, numbers of GOP Representatives admitting they never read it. Not to mention the haste in passing it, and the lack of public involvement.

It's not new. It's exactly the way the Republican party has decided to operate. And yes, they do try to blame others for their own offenses. They never take responsibility, or clean out the log in their own eye.

Really, you think nobody is familiar with what has been going on? You think you can just throw out your spurious misquoting, and not actually be demonstrating the very problem? Hardly. You might as well be chanting about "57" states or "you didn't build that" for all the validity it has.

And with the way the GOP is going, I'd dare them to call snap elections if they could. Well, technically they could, they'd j

But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.

What about that fellow who leaked classified intel to the Kremlin just to impress his Russian pals? I guess it's as Richard Nixon liked to say, if the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.

Petraeus shared the information with a lover and a biographer — there was never even an accusation, he wanted or was prepared to overlook it being accessed by an enemy.

The hypothetical Chinese mole may well be an actual Chinese, working for his country. Assange is not an American and owes us little loyalty.

But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.

There's a big difference between whistleblowing on illegal activities

Manning did it to impress his boyfriend:

To parse Private Bradley Manning’s motivation for sharing classified documents with WikiLeaks, the New York Times talks to Manning’s circle of friends, including a group of “politically motivated computer hackers” that he met through his boyfriend, a drag queen. Those friends suspect that Manning was compelled by “desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur.”

This project reeks of self-righteousness. I wonder what Ballmer's political affiliations are...

Although an equal opportunity giver to both parties, he did work for George W.'s 2004 reelection campaign.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/political-leanings-of-silicon-valley.html

If the GOP was dumb enough to try a coup d'etat by Constitution, they would find out that they don't run as much as they think. There is a reason why they lost the popular vote.

GOP won (by popular vote) 3/4th of state governerships.

Nope. Governorships are not allocated proportionally. Check out the raw numbers, you'll find it is a lot lower.

GOP won (by popular vote) 3/4ths of state legislatures.

Again, nope. Check out the raw numbers, it's heavily warped gerrymandering and voter discrimination. You'll have to do some work, but try the ones that have lost in court. Like North Carolina. Who also tried such a coup d'etat as already mentioned. It failed. Badly.

GOP won (by popular vote) the majority in the Congress.

Nope!

63,173,815 61,776,554 in 2016.
40,081,282 35,624,357 in 2014.
58,228,253 59,645,531 in 2012
44,827,441 38,980,192 in 2010
52,249,491 65,237,840 in 2008

Notice a pattern to it? Not quite what you think. They're still behind 2 million from 8 years ago.

GOP won (by popular vote) the majority in Senate.

Oh, you don't know how the Senate works do you? The Math works out in favor of the Democrats. By 23 million.

GOP won (via the electoral college) the Presidency.

Yes, exactly, relying on the electoral college shows where the GOP is failing.

Every election Democrats lost in 2016 except the Presidential election, was lost in a popular vote.

Oh my, you want to play that card? Turns out, that actually, when you look at the history, you're wrong. Check out the effects of gerrymandering.

Add in the illegal voter discrimination, the unlawful districts in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, and Florida, and the loss in their Arizona lawsuit, and it's not looking good for the GOP.

Yeah, I know you don't want to admit it, but the GOP can't afford a coup d'etat. They aren't winning. They don't have a wide swell of popular support. Frankly, they're lucky they didn't lose the popular vote for the House this time, if that had happened, they'd have really looked bad, the disproportionate representation is bad enough, but not quite

Speaking of vaccines, Donald Trump's Secretary of Health & Human Services believes vaccines should be "up to the states", because apparently diseases respect state boundaries. Apparently, insurance companies should cross state lines, but vaccines should not.

He's also a member of some organization of anti-vaccine knuckleheads.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2...

And of course, Trump himself is an anti-vaxxer:

http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/...

I'm telling you, the current administration is made up of crisis actors.

Why do you say SJWs aren't a thing?

Because they're not.

That's as much bullshit as claiming that racist Trump supporters don't exist. Off the top of my head:

Game of Thrones was "glamorizing" rape in a scene that was supposed to be creepy as fuck: her brother forcing himself on her over the corpse of their dead son. The SWJ's on Salon got half a dozen articles out of that, but DGAF about cannibals murdering an entire village in the same episode, and Theon's far worse fate in a previous season.

All the ratfucking aimed at Bernie Sander's way when he said "excuse me, I'm talking" during a debate - ermagerd he's so sexist to shout down the wooman in the race! When in reality she had constantly been interrupting him, and Sanders was just speaking up for himself.

The craters made in fainting couches over Marvel's variant cover of Spider-Women, even though Spider-Man often drawn in the same pose. In the same vein, the pearls clutched over Apocalypse holding Mystique by the throat, ignoring the fact that is also a common display of dominance from both antagonists and protagonists.

Of course SJW's exist. They are the left wing equivalent of right wingers who rail against trans people using bathrooms or Muslims - assholes who use demagoguery to control conversation and shut people up.

Hmm, students and professors of a university in my county have protested against the invitation of an Israeli minister for some event about security along other major world politicians (including Merckel). Simply because he is from Israel (because all Jews are evil and all Palestinians are good).

Just so you know, the reason that fundamentalists and therefore Republicans are all pro-Jewish is because they believe that Israel is where Armageddon will happen. What happens to them in their myth isn't pro Jewish at all.

Greasing the skids for Armageddon is what we call it http://nymag.com/news/imperial...

Here is what they want: https://www.endtime.com/blog/p...

Tantrums? You mean like the one Trump threw when less people showed up for his inauguration than Obama's? I'm sorry, but Trump is behaving a lot more like a petulant child than presidential. I mean, things like science must be vetted by political appointees now? Or how about the fact that his national security council is now headed by Steve Bannon, a guy who loves pushing conspiracy theories. I mean, politically, the most Trump accomplished before being elected was getting Obama to show his birth certificate. So if you want to talk about sanity, the presidency is not a reality TV show.

Trump was mostly projecting about Hillary. After all, he won't give up his unsecured personal cell phone, and he and his senior staff use a private email server, the same one where 22 million emails mysteriously disappeared and that US intelligence services believe was compromised by the Russians.

I have seen people on slashdot accuse you of rape too. Does that make it a fact? Watch, I'll add another: PopeRatzo raped me. Boom! Fact.

Funny thing about the internet. You can check whether stuff has been reported before.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
http://fusion.net/story/328522...
http://gawker.com/the-time-don...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
http://www.inquisitr.com/36114...
http://time.com/4572925/megyn-...
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/1...

There. That oughtta do it.

Now, where is the evidence that PopeRatzo raped you?

They may not be able to fire a civil servant, but they have just given themselves the power to cut the salaries of individual civil servants to $1, which may be just as effective.

If he behaved this way towards regular people, folks like you might see it differently

Actually, he does. Read your sibling post. He doxxes people who disagree with him on twitter. He doxxes people who donate to politicians he doesn't like. He doxxes government officials when some agency annoys him. For fun, he even doxxed every woman in Turkey back in July. (Met a Turkish babe who wouldn't give you her cell number? Wikileaks has your back, bro!)

So its no real mystery what he wants to do with this information. These days he's basically just trying to run his own personal crowd-sourced KGB.

Yesterday, Washington Post ran a story that the Russians hacked our power grid.

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors. Fake news sites don't issue corrections, because their entire purpose is to make up facts.

NYT a couple days after the election reported Trump had poisoned Meghan Kelly before the first debate. Their source was Mrs. Kelly. Every other news outlet rushed to her to get details and she said that never happened.

Actually, your timeline is a bit messed up. What actually happened was that New York Magazine reported in September that "Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues." This was NOT ignored in the media, but rather spread in September as a big rumor, which Kelly did NOT address or debunk at that time.

Then a couple months later when the New York Times published a book review, it talks about a passage where Kelly recounts the SAME weird story herself where a driver repeatedly insisted on giving her coffee and then rapidly became violently ill. Why exactly she reported that story in her book is unclear, but it seems to confirm that she did find the incident suspicious, as had already been reported in major media outlets two months earlier.

The NYT book review is NOT meant to be a solid piece of "factual journalism," but rather a playful dialogue with the book. Note the repeated "We report. You decide." quip in the review, which is meant to make fun of the Fox News slogan -- and in this case meant to signal a somewhat sarcastic rendering of this story from Kelly's book:

Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.

After this story becomes even more viral (no pun intended) than the September one did, Kelly steps in and tweets that it really was just a stomach bug. But why did she even tell the story in the first place in the book with her suspicion (of what?)?

At best, the book critic at the NYT could be accused of "reading between the lines" about a suspicious passage in the book and reporting an old story which had appeared elsewhere that had NOT been previously debunked by Kelly... and then making a playful "She reports. You decide." joke about it.

Seriously?? Those are the best examples of "fake news" in the mainstream media you can come up with?

This is an actual fake news site. It's made up of completely bogus articles, though it looks legit and the stories may sound vaguely legit if you only read the headline and first paragraph. But it's completely bogus, and most of the stories make that clear by becoming increasingly ridiculous when you read them.

YET a number of "articles" on that satirical site have been shared hundreds of thousands or even millions of times on Facebook as if they were real news. Are you seriously going to say that a corrected article in the WaPo and a quip that echoed a pre-existing st

No one knows if Trump is successful, he's mostly successful at getting his name attached to things. Lots of his projects have ended in spectacular failures, and far more in lawsuits. Of his many failures, there is a common pattern of mismanagement, corruption, and underhanded business tactics. Witholding payment is also something he is known for.

Border security is thinly disguised racism. Vetting of refugees is one of these things like voter fraud that exists only in the minds of those prepared to believe it. Of the nearly 1M immigrants last year, we can probably estimate about 2% to be Muslim, or Middle Eastern, whichever of those groups you feel like discriminating against. 13k Pakistanis versus the overall population of 318 million. I am sure that represents an existential threat to the US, yessiree. Trump has no plan to do most of what you have said, and in many cases he cannot do anything of the sort. Ditching NAFTA and NATO would be next to impossible, and the rationale for them is what, that they're common bogeymen for anti-globalists? I'm not even all that opposed to ending American hegemony over the globe, but shredding treaties is probably not an option, probably a bad way to attempt to do that, and it leaves a ton of issues unsolved. What do we do with our overseas bases? What are we going to do with all the troops we bring back? And why exactly do we want to knowingly weaken our ability to project force against potential enemies?

Fuck Hillary, we weren't talking about her. We were talking about how Trump denies having said things that he himself recorded on video, as the tip of the iceberg. He spent the last year disavowing every position he has ever held, and the last month running away from the extremist positions that he campaigned on. You can't even argue whether he is a liar, you have to deflect with a "tu quoque" jab. The fact is, that he has gained the approval of 25% of the electorate population by promising them things which he cannot deliver and for which he has no plans to deliver.

Trump is unarguably the least qualified President-elect in history. If the Electoral College does not reject him they will have failed of their duty.

While he is cosing up to Russia, the latest insults towards China indicate that the latter will be designated as the new hostile nation #1, and the TPP is all about containing and insulating China.

I'm finding it somewhat improbable that an 8-0 decision would be made on a deeply divided Supreme Court with justices having dramatically different views of the constitution if there's such a compelling case in opposition to the decision they made. Can you put forward a theory that explains why all eight justices rejected this argument?

This case doesn't involve constitutionality at all, so their deeply divided views there don't matter. Most patent decisions are unanimous or nearly unanimous. Generally, because they care about patents and technology exactly as much as you'd expect from a bunch of 70 year olds that don't even use email.

Why did they reject the argument? Because they didn't like the outcome.
What's the legal reasoning that supports that? There really isn't any. If there's no constitutional argument to be made, they don't get to rewrite a statute just because they dislike the outcome. Instead, they try to shoehorn in a statutory interpretation argument that doesn't really apply, considering that Congress explicitly told them how to interpret the statute the last time this happened.

People should be able to seek a diagnosis for mental illness without stigma, and get treatment if they need it.

They already do, depending on the "diagnosis". It seems like having aspergers, ADHD, or being on some part of the spectrum is almost a badge of honor in some circles, especially in tech:
http://nymag.com/news/features...

And just think about the amount of people getting prescribed Xanax, Prozac, or Adderall nowadays.....seems like people are getting what they want (whether or not this is "treatment", or course, is debatable).

Look at Adam Lanza (the Newtown guy) -- according to all accounts, his mother basically hid his developing mental illness for years and refused to accept there was a problem. But, the sad thing is that even if she had sought help for him, she wouldn't have been able to get itc

Hogwash. She was fairly well-off financially, and it's been said that what set him off was that his mother had finally decided to have him committed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Although the details behind that were somewhat speculative, he was at the very least seeing a psychiatrist, one that was in the news recently with his own set of problems:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

I'm not saying we should go back to the bad old days of locking people up for depression, giving them lobotomies or abusing them...but I do think deinstitutionalization went way too far.

Maybe. But you need to be careful of what you're asking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Besides, since we're entirely talking about hypotheticals here, if Twitter were to do a Lavabit how is TheRealDonaldTrump going to get MSM to jump and report any <40 character bit of random thought as front-page news? ;-)

Don't laugh just yet my friend:

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/president-trump-can-send-emergency-alerts-to-everyone.html

I was thinking through the recent news (last night) that Trump got Carrier to keep 1000 jobs in the US, and how I couldn't see a way to frame that in a bad light. Lo and behold! Recent comments on Slashdot manage to paint this as a bad thing.

Slashdot is hardly the only place where you'll hear a negative opinion of the Carrier deal. Several news outlets are also taking a more skeptical view.

In the end, viewing any deal as objectively good or bad may be overly simplistic. In the case of this one, it seems like it's good for the people who won't be losing their jobs. It also seems good for other companies who now have a precedent for extracting concessions from our government in exchange for abandoning plans to offshore jobs, as well as those employees who won't be losing their jobs as a result. It seems less good (or even bad) for taxpayers who aren't invested in or employed by these companies, as they'll be effectively subsidizing these jobs to some extent, and it's not clear that the cost of this subsidy is greater than the general economic benefit gained by having a marginally stronger labor market in the manufacturing sector.

What we're seeing is you not seeing any of the arguments actually presented against Devos. Ever.

Ever.
Ever.
Ever.

Sorry, but when considering picks for running the Department of Education, I'd put her on the typical right-wing DESTROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY HATE GOD committee.

You really gonna post links to Mother Jones and nymag and use that as references? Did you miss the recent scare about fake news?

For instance, here's what's on the front page of nymag right now:

Ask Polly: How Do I Deal With My Trump-Voter Dad?

How do I mesh the man I loved and respected with the man who voted for Trump? How do I stay friends with people who voted Trump? Please help me. I’m really struggling with how to move forward.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/1...

Someone is asking how she can respect her father, knowing that he voted for Trump. What kind of person can get that far in their brainwash? That's the kind of question people would ask in Hitler Youth.

And here's the best part:

I tried talking calmly to my dad and just got a steady stream of Fox News bull$&@!

Someone is writing to NYMAG saying that they can no longer respect their father because he voted for Trump, and in the same breath they go and complain that he's the one spewing propaganda.

Really, wtf. One has to wonder how, as a society, we got to a point where the intolerance of the liberals has reached the point where they reject their own parents for voting Republican.

What we're seeing is you not seeing any of the arguments actually presented against Devos. Ever.

Ever.
Ever.
Ever.

Sorry, but when considering picks for running the Department of Education, I'd put her on the typical right-wing DESTROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY HATE GOD committee.

You really gonna post links to Mother Jones and nymag and use that as references? Did you miss the recent scare about fake news?

For instance, here's what's on the front page of nymag right now:

Ask Polly: How Do I Deal With My Trump-Voter Dad?

How do I mesh the man I loved and respected with the man who voted for Trump? How do I stay friends with people who voted Trump? Please help me. I’m really struggling with how to move forward.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/1...

Someone is asking how she can respect her father, knowing that he voted for Trump. What kind of person can get that far in their brainwash? That's the kind of question people would ask in Hitler Youth.

And here's the best part:

I tried talking calmly to my dad and just got a steady stream of Fox News bull$&@!

Someone is writing to NYMAG saying that they can no longer respect their father because he voted for Trump, and in the same breath they go and complain that he's the one spewing propaganda.

Really, wtf. One has to wonder how, as a society, we got to a point where the intolerance of the liberals has reached the point where they reject their own parents for voting Republican.

Instead of making wild accusations, why don't you explain exactly what's wrong with Trump's nominee for Education? The only thing she's truly famous for is her stance on right-to-choose and vouchers.

She's not famous for anything, IMHO.

See, it takes more than "it's a Trump nominee" to label someone an incompetent. We're seeing the same pattern as during the election; there's nothing to support arguments, it's always just Trump=bad.

If you disagree with this nomination, explain why.

What we're seeing is you not seeing any of the arguments actually presented against Devos. Ever.

Ever.
Ever.
Ever.

Sorry, but when considering picks for running the Department of Education, I'd put her on the typical right-wing DESTROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY HATE GOD committee.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

"The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked"

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801229361386921984

"And Michigan has paper ballots everywhere, so not even sure what claim is being made there"

What more do you need?

After examining results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin computer scientists have discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots.

Where's that come from? A CNN article which doesn't provide a citation to anything which supports that claim, not even NYmag, which seems to be the original source for it. That article is more specific, saying

The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.

Going further, the one name given in both articles, J. Alex Halderman, in the post at the other link in the summary, says the article was inaccurate:

You may have read at NYMag... That article, which includes somebody else's description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot).

... and goes on to give reasons for checking ballots, with absolutely no mention of the statistical anomalies claimed.

Furthermore, examining the above "7%" claim, the Halderman article has a map which shows that all counties in Michigan and Wisconsin use paper ballots. So, there can be no basis for the claim that there's a difference between electronic and paper ballot counties in Wisconsin (or Michigan)!

And, no info on methodology back up the claim - you can't directly compare two different counties in two different states (or even the same state) and expect them to have equivalent vote proportions. If such comparisons were made, were they against previous votes in the same counties? How are they comparing votes in Pennsylvania counties with electronic voting against Michigan and Wisconsin counties? Or are they just using a difference between polls and actual vote totals? Seems the polls were wrong in lots of places, and to try and base any statistical claims on them seems to be a case of garbage-in-garbage-out.

Finally, if as stated the concern is with electronic voting machines, why would they call for recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin, which use paper ballots?

It just defies logic and sense. Is this just fake news which has found its way onto CNN via NYMag?

Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of "fake news" sites, which is now making the rounds as some sort of authoritative resource, even making its way into browser extensions to "protect" users from fake news sites.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

http://nymag.com/selectall/201...

http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/...

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11...

There is a danger that all the sites providing this news are, in fact, fake news sites themselves...
 

> Based on the quote in his email to his wife that was entered as evidence in his divorce.

I think you are going to have to walk that back. I can't find any evidence of such an email.
The closest I could find was a conversation that was confirmed by a 3rd party, but who did not read the conversation as anti-semitic.

Personally, i think that unlike his wife, the 3rd party simply didn't have enough experience with Bannon to recognize the subtext of the question. I think the guy has mastered the art of avoiding crude and straightforward expressions of racism, he does racism by proxy instead.

And that works for any individual examples. But you add up enough of those examples and the fig leaf dissolves.

Trump also finished off the remnants of the Clinton crime family by humiliating Hillary and her sycophants with the greatest upset of the modern political era

Forgot to stir the ashes: Chelsea Clinton Is Reportedly Gearing Up for a Congressional Run

Some quotes from a NYMag article, "What Happens When Hillary Clinton Calls Your Cartoon Frog Racist" just over a month ago:

Neither the elder or the younger Trump actually crafted the Pepe images they posted — credit for that goes to the hateful meme factories of the so-called alt-right. Indeed, Pepe has become something of a mascot for them. But Pepe predates their rise to national prominence, and his creator, cartoonist Matt Furie, could not be less connected to their movement. He’s been drawing Pepe on and off as part of a surreal comic strip called Boy’s Club since 2005, and he doesn’t seem to care at all about the ways the character has been used to create havoc online. “Politics are for dorks,” he tells me in an email

Trump’s retweeting of a Pepe meme seemed like a nonevent to him. “I’m sure it was just a young Republican dude posting it to appeal to smug Trumpies,” he says. “It was just as amusing as anything else stupid on the internet.” When I ask him if any use of Pepe has shocked or disgusted him, he replies, “Not really — there is all kinds of idiotic stuff on the internet. I usually just check my email or go on Facebook or something.”

“Pepe is everything and nothing,” Furie says. “He is stupid and amazing at the same time — kinda like life. Pepe is life.”

One thing he clearly expresses is how little he’s been moved by Pepe’s most notable moments of fame. I ask how it felt when Perry and Minaj posted Pepe memes and all he says is, “I don’t care.” I bring up last year’s bizarre “Rare Pepe” craze, in which 4chan users semi-seriously attempted to counteract mainstream appropriation of Pepe by flooding the board with unique versions of him; he muses, “I just sit back, relax and let the Pepes fall where they land, my friend!”

He doesn’t seem that interested in discussing the other characters and comics, either. “They are what they are: just weird comics about a bunch of weird fraggles hanging out in mysterious nothingness,” he says. I ask him if he sees any sadness in the quartet’s gross lives and his reply is blunt: “No, they are just dumb cartoons.”

But ultimately, it doesn’t seem like Furie loses much sleep over questions about Pepe’s significance or what the frog means for him as an artist. Or, at least, that’s the image he wants to project. “I love to Google my own name,” he says. “I’m much more concerned about ‘Matt Furie.’ I’ll never be as popular as the frog, but I’m alive: something he can never be.”

So he went from a laissez-faire attitude about Pepe to battling the alt-right and, by extension, the Literal Hitler Candidate, Donald Trump. He's either been offered a shitload of money and book deals, or his life was threatened.

And considering how much information is out there about how money affects people's behavior and rationality, I think my case is strong.

http://www.livescience.com/112...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://nymag.com/news/features...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

a fark theme, too, of course.

After the alert mechanism was misused in my state for an Amber alert for an incident hundreds of miles away, I turned these alerts off.

Exactly the same here: After I was woken up from sleep at 2AM by an Amber Alert for a child that purportedly missing 200 miles away (who turned out to be with her father) I turned the alerts OFF.

However, in their favor, the adjustments to the alert system also are going to improve the geographical targetting, so that they will be more narrowly broadcast to just the areas affected:
http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...

OK, a couple of things. The site you linked to hasn't published all Hitler's speeches. Just the ones they thought reflected best on him. If you want to know what Hitler was saying about the Jews, I refer you to Mein Kampf.

As for Mr. Trump's position on Muslims, he did not specifically call for internment of Muslims (as far as I can see) but invited comparisons by suggesting his policies were akin to FDR's policies on Japanese Americans. However when challenged point-blank about interning Muslims he ruled it out (at least for now). But here are some of the measures he has either suggested or refused to rule out when asked point blank:

(1) Warrantless searches targetted at Muslims
(2) Requiring Muslims to register in a national database
(3) Requiring Muslims to carry special identification papers.

[source]

These have prompted condemnations from most Congressional Republicans. There are, of course, the requisite oddball or two, mostly crackpot state legislators and a few ex-Congress critters . I wouldn't dream of hanging these kooks around most Republicans' necks -- living by the sword and all that you know.

Well at this point the primary story is the meta story about how otherwise sophisticated investors put in tons of money behind the the young, attractive, blonde woman even though they were shown very little evidence. That meta story is both entertaining and fact based.

The thing is with playing up the young, blonde part... where are all the stories about VCs putting vast amounts of money behind ordinary looking guys (as happens a lot) and losing it all because it was always a really stupid idea. The "young, blonde, female" thing is a massive red herring.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

Aparrently someone invested 1.2 million in a social network for people with curly hair.

What. The. Fuck?!

And there are many tales of formerly huge values companies (e.g. Digg) not selling and becoming worthless, or selling (myspace) and becoming worthless, indicating that really, really stupid investments are very common.

IOW they're playing up on her looks because she's female even though it has nothing to do with any of this.

Dude, wake up to yourself, different strokes for different folks because it is in error for you does not make it an error for everyone else. For you obviously someone obliviously entering you home in dirty clothes, tracking footprints to your once clean lounge suite, yeah, how well do you handle that. Could it possibly be that you do not reflect majority behaviour and how much would you be harmed by the thought that feaces particles of all description float about within your place of residents, including your own http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2..., have fun with that story.

Now you have a bunch of activist judges making legal leaps and declaring Voter ID illegal not because it's against the Constitution, but because it "unfairly affects minorities".

It's not the voter ID that's against the Constitution, dumbshit. It's the "unfairly affects minorities" part.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontl...

You will notice that states that enacted these strict voter ID laws still allow absentee ballots. The Federal courts might not have decided against these states if Republican officials in those states didn't come out and flat admit that they were passing these laws to keep minorities from voting

http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

But I'm sure the new excuse for these statements is that they were being "sarcastic". That's what Republicans say now when they get their tongues caught in a zipper.

A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report:

New York times: invested majority stake by Carlos Slim with ties to obama and the Clinton foundation

The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

DNC analytics is Groundworks from GOOGLE

Still trying blame the russians when its clear wikileaks is telling you something here.

This whole story is a political hit job written by a fully compromised media outlet. Gerbil and Stalin would be proud of the American Media at this point.

Feel Free to visit independent media and see whats going on. Youtube:

Drudge Report

Redacted tonight

infowars.com

The Jimmy Dore show

Paul Joseph Watson

The Young Turks are going all in for Hillary, avoid them till they get their heads out of their behinds.

The hyphenation in Berners-Lee is a linguistic device, whereas Wasserman-Schultz is statement of Womyn's Liberation.

And he outs himself as a troll from /pol after all. Another Matt Forney/RooshV wannabe.

In case you don't know who that is, Matt Forney is a "men's rights activist" and all-around scumbag. Here's a photo, in case you're wondering why he's a man-going-his-own-way (MGTOW):

http://mattforney.com/wp-conte...

And RooshV is a guy who lives with his mom and writes pick-up guides about smashing puss. He believes rape should be legal, and has never been with a woman that he didn't pay for.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/0...

So the rest of you: the next time you see an AC trolling here, don't get upset wondering where all the messed up "nerds" have come from. These ACs calling people "nigger" and "kike" are just greasy scumbags who got lost on their way from the /pol sewers to Stormfront.

So frequently one will attack people, saying that it is for Islam, but then everyone will say "it wasn't really, he's just insane".

I think you have this backwards. If a Muslim guy kills half a dozen people, the media headlines say "Terrorist Attack"! If a random white guy kills half a dozen people, the media story says "Another mass shooting by an insane guy." But the number of "insane guys" who do mass shootings outnumbers the number of Muslim guys-- thousands of killings by ordinary Americans, versus a handful by Muslims..
(source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... )

A harder question is: why are Americans so terrorized, when the actual threat is trivial? http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2...

Don't forget- this is the guy who was having an affair while his wife was sick cancer, and who had her served divorce papers while she in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor.

Wait, the kicker of that story is that his excuse for cheating on his sick wife was that he just loved America too much. I'll bet it was the first time that patriotism was used as an excuse for an extramarital affair - but I'm sure it's not the last.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."

What man can't relate to this? You get so distracted by loving this country so damn much that you forget to notice that your penis has found its way into a woman who is not your wife.

What revelation would that be? Blacks demanded the drug war. Their neighborhoods were overrun with addicts, dealers, and the crime necessary to pay for the next fix.

I'm just going to leave this here:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/0...

Sure he's a blowhard and a dirty bastard but compared to a shit stain like Hillary he looks pretty damn good.

There are thousands of things that don't look as bad as a shit stain—if you can see them at all—that will harm you far worse than a shit stain. An insecure, xenophobe blowhard in a post-nuclear world might very well be one of those things.

On the playground, being a shit stain is pretty much the ground zero of social comparison. In real life, the Mines of Moria couldn't contain everything scarier and deadlier than a shit stain. Definitely, Trump will do well among the playground electorate who show up to vote using their trusty shit-stain barometer.

The rest of the electorate will stop to ponder world problems that can't be resolved with a box of Tide.

Suds for Drugs

There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."

Gamergate logic.

Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

Votes would seem to be a better measure, but then I'm not familiar with Gamergate logic.

There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."

Gamergate logic.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
                ---Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Yeah, these are the "masters of the universe" that tanked our economy, was bailed out for 10s of billions of dollars after their CEO became the treasury secretary, then outsourced 1,000 American jobs and gave their execs huge raises and paid "up to" a paltry $5 billion for defrauding their own customers.

No high level execs at Goldman Sachs went to jail,and the systemic problem is worse today than before the crisis.

Why would I give even even a penny to admitted criminals with a proven record of abusing their customers and being grossly selfish and irresponsible?!

Fuck those guys. Seriously.