Slashdot Mirror

During the primaries all the left wing msm went easy on him and treated him with kid gloves. The moment he won the primaries the MSM barring Fox news completely flipped the script.

During the election CNN tripped over themselves to give Trump air time. The one that stands out was when they all, CNN included ignored a Hillary Clinton speech to show an empty podium while they were waiting for Trump. link

Trump was good for ratings. Unfortunately ratings is a shitty way to elect a president.

Most didn't take Trump seriously early on, since they though for sure he would implode at any time, but he never did. Cruz in particular seemed to be positioning himself to take Trump's voters when he did implode, though it was Cruz that actually eventually went on a rant. link While I also loath Cruz, that rant makes some really good points.

I suspect Trump will get a primary challenger if he doesn't get impeached before. I just don't know if the spineless republicans will choose a sane alternative. Trump will certainly seek to destroy all challengers, usually with lies, insults and schoolyard bullying, and of course never forget projection.

Sure current CNN and all the rest is going after Trump now, but then that is simply because he is truly awful in almost every way imaginable and sure when Trump calls CNN fake news and denigrates them, well it might, just might be providing some motivation for those at CNN to work just a bit harder. If world war 3 ever begins, it won't be due to some brilliant generals planning. No it will be because of people like Trump making too many mistakes, pushing bombast and bullshit too far until one mistake too many is made.

Most likely sooner or later we will crash the economy. Think about it. We have basically injected heroin into the bloodstream of America with all the insane tax cuts that are direct borrowing. We did this at a time the American economy was doing well. Then we start fucking up everything with tariffs left and right. Mix in a bit of random destruction of the environment and wrecking of the accomplishments in improving healthcare. Don't forget loss of any norms and decency. Let simmer and see what happens.

I'm guessing we will eventually see a crash, but this time we will be so broke. Furthermore we will have alienated many of our allies.

Will there be any country willing to help America when the crash occurs or will they look on us much like a normal person looks at a drug user thrashing outside in the cold while America squeezes some more drugs into its system? Of course at some point you have to cut the users off. If it starts looking like we can't pay back all our debt, well we will get cut off. The fact that we are led by a person who has welshed on his debt multiple times can't help matters.

I assume the judge did not make such a statement, and you're inferring the motivations. If so, it seems likely you are inferring them based on your worldview, rather than any evidence.

I'm basing them on reality, rather than pretending that racial prejudice doesn't exist.

It takes a mass of like-minded individuals standing "with" you.

So there should be differences in government intrusiveness, oppression, civil rights violations, however you want to phrase it, according to the prevalence of gun ownership in different areas.

No. It's not primarily about geographical region. It has more to do with other demographics. There can be plenty of those violations, you have to look at who is being targeted in the first place. What color of person is most commonly subjected to stop-and-frisk, for example? That's a clear violation of constitutional rights, and we have to assume that there are more illicit items being illegally concealed by white people just because there's more white people. The same is true of any other rights violation. In theory, we have all kinds of fancy rights. In practice, you have only those rights which others are willing to help you defend. That's why only white male landowners get to exercise their rights under the second amendment without repercussions with any regularity. They like to call Greece the birthplace of democracy, but they only extended the vote to racially privileged male landowners, the same as this nation when it was founded.

In response to the comments, Facebook issued a statement saying it is a "vastly different company" from when it was founded.

Yes, back then it was founded by a Sociopath. As we all know, Corporations are Psycopaths. Totally different breed. Vastly different, one might say.

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

He has a 50% approval rating. Sorry to let you know that.

Nope.

Of course, we're looking for people who can recognize that he's a boor, a buffoon, and an embarrassment to the country, which doesn't preclude approval, so that's not exactly meaningful.

It is telling that he is lying, the same as he lied about a landslide.

Let me give you a clue - it got so bad that the President of the Philippines - long considered a vassal state to the US - openly mocked Obama last year.

Oh my, you mean that reprobate thug? Exactly why would we want his approval? That's baffling. Then again, you seem to want the Phillipines to be a subject of the US for some reason.

I'm not a Trump fan but I recognize why he won (clue: Hillary) and I have no delusions that we would have been better off in *any* way with Hillary in the White House.

Trump won because running, as a Republican, he could have been a brain-eating space alien, and have a chance to win. Sheer chance let him through, and we'd have been better off without the learning experience of Trump in office.

He has a 50% approval rating. Sorry to let you know that.

Nope.

Of course, we're looking for people who can recognize that he's a boor, a buffoon, and an embarrassment to the country, which doesn't preclude approval, so that's not exactly meaningful.

It is telling that he is lying, the same as he lied about a landslide.

Let me give you a clue - it got so bad that the President of the Philippines - long considered a vassal state to the US - openly mocked Obama last year.

Oh my, you mean that reprobate thug? Exactly why would we want his approval? That's baffling. Then again, you seem to want the Phillipines to be a subject of the US for some reason.

I'm not a Trump fan but I recognize why he won (clue: Hillary) and I have no delusions that we would have been better off in *any* way with Hillary in the White House.

Trump won because running, as a Republican, he could have been a brain-eating space alien, and have a chance to win. Sheer chance let him through, and we'd have been better off without the learning experience of Trump in office.

To show that this is not new, look back at the first reporting of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case by NBC. Who was caught editing audio to make George appear to be racist instead of answering a dispatcher's question, they lightened his photos to make him appear to be white instead of Hispanic, and instead of displaying current pictures of Trayvon Martin pulled pictures of him as an elementary school kid instead of a 17 year old 6'1" young man who enjoyed MMA.

Oh my, you can go back further than that. Like with OJ Simpson, and at least you'll have an older example. Or even further.

Besides, Zimmerman? He is a racist. There's a reason he lost his suit. Seriously, that idiot could have avoided being a killer of another human being if all he'd done was gone to the pharmacy instead.

Cherry picking and editing are common tactics for media propagandists in the US. If you were fooled, shame on you.

You forgot law enforcement. And other forms of Planting evidence and corruption.

I'm sure you meant nothing by the oversight.

Plenty of lawsuits have been won against these media outlets for various civil reasons. Off the top of my head, ABC and CNN have both had to issue public apologies and retractions in the last month and a half for doing this, or would have faced even more civil suits.

Oh, you should learn about Fox.. So bad, the White House had to apologize to a foreign country for believing Fox News. Editing video since 1984.

You know, a company that hired a PR firm to slut shame people critical of one of their hosts. Looks like that is getting out.

So are you happy yet?

What "half" of the population you moron? About 7% of the US population supports or agrees with the current feminism movement. The "womans" march after inauguration disallowed and dis invited anyone who was not pro choice, excluding at least half the women in the country. It was propaganda, and 93% of the women in the country that don't agree with feminism want people like you to fuck off and die.

Nope.

The poll conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that more Americans have a favorable opinion of the women who marched during Trump’s inaugural weekend – 50 percent – than they do of the new president, who only 44 percent of respondents support. Trump’s disapproval rating – 50 percent – is also historically high for a new president.

And then you look at other states that are failing

Other states have:

*Taxes that are devastating on people with lower incomes
*Instead of randomly belaboring a single data point, consider the whole picture, including the nastiness of total local government debt
*A regulatory and legal climate that leads to exposure to pollution and injury risks
*Decades old reports with schools that are some of the worst in the nation being hysteria to justify even worse results
*Huge backlogs of road work necessary across the country, and a refusal to pay for it
*Increasing income inequality
*Huge drug problems in rural areas.

I can drop links on you all day, don't pester California or San Francisco when you live in a glass house yourself.

It is because Left Wingers keep parroting "Clinton won the Popular Vote" as if that mattered.

Except it does. Why?

Because it shows Trump is LYING about a landslide.

If you weren't a partisan hack, you'd oppose that too, and point out the real facts. You can't though, because again, you're a partisan hack.

Which you can't even admit, but have to lie about and pretend you're some kind of neutral observer. Who consistently repeats right-wing lies. Huh.

You think we're dumb as you are? We're not, we spot your lies.

When liberals offer that up, it opens up every other comparison out there. Hillary lost the election, popular vote doesn't count. If you wanted it to count, the vote totals would change, substantially.

Whah-whah. It does count. Because that way, we know exactly how broken the Electoral College system is, and no, not every other comparison. Your false allegations about Hillary losing in 49 states, for example. Trump's assertions of a landslide. Those are still lying bullshit.

A lot of Republicans in California don't vote because what is the point?

All evidence indicates a lot of Americans don't vote, period.

Turnout drop is arguable, but even that aside, 90 million non-voters. That's how Trump was able to win Wisconsin with fewer votes than the losing side got in 2004.

Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.

Um, what planet are you living on?

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/31/corruption-overload-trumps-club-sold-tickets-president-elect-years-eve-party.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/inauguration-donald-trump-president.html?_r=0

It's over. Mr. Trump is someone else's POTUS. But not mine.

Your comment on my signature block is off-topic for this discussion. But you already know that.

Sorry to inform you, if you're a citizen of the US, then he's gong to be your president unless something extraordinary happens. Period, full stop, the end. You might not have voted for him, you might hate his guts and politics and wish him ill, and until he takes to oath of office he ISN'T your president -- but once he does, he is.

I'm giving Mr. Trump the same level of respect that the Republicans gave President Obama for eight years.

Then again, if you really don't want him to be your president, you can always renounce your U.S. citizenship and pick exactly who you'd like.

I'm still waiting for Rush Limbaugh to move to Costa Rica after ObamaCare became law.

http://www.politicususa.com/2010/03/22/limbaugh-costa-rica.html

And by the way, I'm curious: are you on either coast? I'm in flyover country.

I'm a moderate conservative in California. Yes, I voted for Hillary. At least she was the real deal. I still don't under how the Republicans nominated someone who was neither a conservative nor a Republican, and, until a few short years ago, was a Clinton Democrat.

I'm far more concerned about the number of Americans who want to make Christianity the official religion of the US.

I didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- but if you look at what actually happened, you don't need conspiracy theories to explain it.

But that's the thing, too many people on the Trump side are explaining it as...something it is not. That's what has come up here.

Hillary won the east and west coasts, very much as you might have expected. She won them big and that's the main reason for her overall popular vote win.

She lost in conservative states where you would expect that.

The pollsters and pundits misread the situation on the ground in states like Michigan, which they thought Hillary would win, but instead went over to Trump by fairly narrow margins.

Ah, you should look at some maps..

Pretty
pictures.
ok

This appears to be more to do with the economy, jobs, etc., than leaked emails and the like.

Well, it's not because they love Donald Trump. He's now not unfavorable by 2/3 of the country! That's soaring...to new lows.

Of course, all of this can be debated endlessly, but what is there about the election that really leads to a credible theory of manipulation, fraud, and hacking? The fact that Hillary lost is not exactly evidence.

You may or may not be disappointed with the outcome. You may or may not be happy that Trump will be president. But there certainly seems to be a fairly simple and fairly logical explanation for the outcome. That seems a lot stronger than conspiracy theories.

Bzzt, error, error. You're in the wrong section of the thread. This is the section of the thread where we're talking about how Trump's win is not a landslide, is not clearly showing how the American people are speaking, and ultimately how Trump's a lying braggart.

I mean, if you want to discuss something, we could ask ourselves why Wisconsin has the lowest turnout since 2000. Why Michigan had so many problems. Why Pennsylvania election officials lied to potential voters. We could do that. But we won't.

and you can't ignore the interests of minority small states.

And I'm sure you'd feel the same way if small states were black and hispanic majority and it was your "team" that lost elections about it.

No wait I forgot, you're a massive hypocrite who would be outraged because you're so obsessed with winning you'll reach out at any dubious justification that gives you an advantage.

Just like I'm sure you think every voter needs to show ID, to combat the virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud. But you think accessibility is really important so you have no issue with mail-in ballots.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

Hrm. Let's shelve that dubious tradition for a moment, and focus on what minority means in the sense of a democratic government where each proposition that passes has a majority (or plurality) support, and a minority that opposes it.

Yes, lets shelve what people actually mean when they talk about protecting minorities so you can confuse the debate by talking about a different concept that happens to share the same word.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

I call bullshit. If you know muslims, you know they're not a race, they're a religion.

Sorry, you're a bigoted piece of shit.

You know precious little about your best friends if you think muslims are a "race".

You're a pretentious moron if your positions are so facile that you need to reject the popular definition of a word in favour of a ridiculously pedantic definition and then claim intellectual superiority.

Secondly, if your muslim friends don't disavow sharia law

Do your Christian friends disavow biblical law? Do you tell them to fuck off if they don't?

(which, my muslim friends do,

Somehow I'm doubtful your "Muslim friends" know your real views.

If your holy book insists that you create earthly governments that subjugate women, or kill gays, you can kindly do that barbaric shit somewhere else.

Blah blah, applies to christians too.

The most devout guy I knew was best friends with a lesbian. News flash, a lot of people don't actually follow their holy books.

You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

Ask them if they support sharia law.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should apply to non muslims.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should override the constitution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

If they really are good people, the aren't "good" muslims.

Looks like your party would be quite at home.

I'm not going to claim that Muslims in general are as liberal as Christians. But to say the that anyone who considers themselves a devout Muslim is somehow a terrorist sympathizer looking to subjugate non-Muslims is ignorant and bigoted.

Considering one of the major contributers is "unintentional injury deaths, such as overdoses and car accidents, increased by 6.7 percent" much of the blame likely sits on the pain pill problem. Cancer deaths actually went down, so health care is working for that disease. Alzheimers deaths rose a lot... but they say this is due to the medical establishment just recategorizing that as a cause of death... woner what those were usually listed under.

The ars article has some useful charts, if, unlike 3 out of 5 of trump supporters, you know how to read them.

What worries me here is Trump's record of singling out people or groups as enemies to be crushed or humiliated. Combine that with his paranoid "Alt-Right" cohort in the White House, and you have the potential for serious mis-use of surveillance powers against domestic adversaries (or anyone who just doesn't agree with them).

Point of historical note, we should not only be keeping our eyes on mass disappearances/roundups of Hispanics and Muslims, we should be keeping our eyes on them, too.

During the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives, the SA (brownshirts, goon squads of fanatacal Hitler loyalists) was wiped out, having served their usefulness. If Thiel and Yiannopoulos and most the alt-right social media accounts suddenly go silent (rather than merely whining about why Trump's picking advisors from the Bush administration and Wall Street), we should probably take that as an indication that something very wrong has happened.

As for surveillance policy, it would have expanded under Clinton too, but very few in the intel community want to work with Trump. That, (along with the safeguards and procedures as revealed in the leaked documents over the past few years) speaks well of their professionalism and their attempts to minimize the harm that their jobs inflict on our rights. (I'd prefer the harm not be done at all, but I acknowledge that if you're going to have blanket surveillance, you should try to minimize what you use it for, but that's a debate my side lost 15 years ago.)

Unfortunately, it also suggests strongly that their replacements will come from a smaller pool of intel guys who are willing to work for Trump, and... well, if we have Giuliani as Mr. Stop-And-Frisk himself in charge, the new SCOTUS justice unlikely to be as pro-Fourth as Scalia was, yeah, we're all pretty much fucked.

I'm a white, straight, male whose only drugs are alcohol and caffeine. I can live under President Pence. But if we start seeing mass arrests of political opponents, I'm outa here. Eventually they'll come for the people who post as ACs on Slashdot. And they'll use this post as evidence of having insufficient loyalty to the Nation. And it will be legal.

Sorry, kwbauer, the fact is, we've already heard that sentiment. Republicans have proclaimed they have a mandate. Oh you may sputter over use of another phrasing, and you certainly won't admit the meaning is clear, but we've heard it.

Don't worry, some of us remember. Hypocrisy, and amnesia may be your defect, but others, others have their own recollections, and can spot your lies.

You have done it. You will do it again. Your political side has done it, in this particular instance. They have made the claim, get to the back of the bus. And yet...Trump still has less voters than Obama did. And a tighter margin.

Feel free to shock me, admit my interpretation is correct, then deny that Paul Ryan was correct.

100 people read 723 emails a day?

Not that hard really.

Agreed. This was Anthony's device, so you can expect a great many of the emails are irrelevant. Here is my guess:
1) Autofilter spam based on known FBI spam samples. Who knows what crap he gets sent. I for one don't want to know.
2) Autofilter all existing emails that were already categorized in the Clinton investigation. Those have been determined. A copy means nothing new.
3) Autofilter any email that is contained in another email. I.E. if a conversation was continued in a reply, but the reply contains the full contents of the original, then you can bin the original in a separate bin. You still have to read the whole chain, but don't have to read lots of copies.
4) Task division by subject and recipient. I bet your down to a 1/3 by now. The FBI is a big place.
5) Do an initial review. All overtime is authorized. This review is separate from each other. All work independently. Mark any email that needs further review and get that in the right persons queue.
6) Lots of food and drink gets brought in.
7) People keep working through their queues. If a queue is emptied, more gets diverted.

In short this is a hair on fire all hands on deck kind of situation. The FBI's integrity has been called into question, as has the outcome of a national election. Did they have incentive to work quickly? You bet, but that was their job. Also as someone pointed out they have a staff of like 13,000 who might be qualified. Coordinating enough to do this job should be doable.

If anything this means the FBI can turn on a dime when it has to. This should be expected. How the heck are they supposed to do their job of protecting the country if they can't. Sure not every email may have been subjected to a three month discussion among ten different agencies to try to find a way to look at it in a bad light, but then I don't think anything ever warranted that level of scrutiny in the first place.

Republicans other obsession is the Clinton Cash book, which we know is full of lies. link. Seriously, since when does the FBI go on fishing expeditions for right wing nut jobs? Have they no real crimes to solve?

Well, these things are all true today. Next year, who knows?

Trump threatens to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters

Donald Trump vows to "open up" libel laws to make suing the media easier.

"With me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people. We're gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we're gonna have people sue you like you never got sued before."

Trump never solidly supported the Iraq War.

Trump never solidly supports any position. He changes his mind more often than a teenage girl changes moods. I don't actually mind someone changing their mind about a topic when they learn new information or even if they give a matter serious consideration. Trump never gives anything serious consideration. His policy positions are the very definition of fickle and certainly aren't based out of any ideology or even pragmatism but instead out of whatever whim strikes him at the time. He basically plays to whatever crowd he is facing and lies almost all the time.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war; that's a bit more serious.

So did most of congress at the time and they did so largely based on bad data from our intelligence agencies and the Bush administration. A mistake I think but not one that makes me think Trump would be a better choice as commander in chief.

More to the point what information could you find in his tax returns that would sway people from voting for him?

Most likely that his Returns won't portray him in the same light as he's been shining on himself. But, that's really only a problem for the naive. From Trump Admits That He Will Lose The Election If He Releases His Tax Returns (and other places):

Trump admitted that there is something in his tax returns that will cause him to lose the election. His reference to his own belief that something in Romney’s tax return cost Republicans in 2012 was about as close to an admission as voters are going to get from Trump.

Donald Trump defended his tax returns as legal, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right. What Trump is most likely hiding is the fact that he hasn’t paid any personal income taxes for decades. Trump isn’t paying his fair share of taxes. That is what he is hiding. Donald Trump is trying to pass himself off as some sort of blue-collar billionaire while he is manipulating the system in a way that no working class American ever could.

For more info: trump romney tax returns

They fear no repercussions for any of this since Bernie's followers will be good little Democrats and vote for Hillary in the end. That is all that matters.

It didn't take them too long to bow down to Hillary either. Those that have any integrity will probably vote third party, most likely Green.

The revolution is dead despite Bernie's claims to the contrary. He got on board with Hillary so he will not lose the committee positions and other advantages he has in the Senate. To go against her would mean he would be ostracized, so he plays ball. He talks of the platform, platforms never mean a damn thing. They are just symbolic appeasements for the fringe elements of the party. Always has been, now Bernie's revolution joins those ranks.

Bernie's revolution was never a revolution, it was a case of the everyone-gets-a-trophy entitlement generation (a.k.a. Millennials) latching on to the guy who promised to make everything free.

It'll be OK when Trump is president because he loves the Jews and Israel.

http://time.com/4392387/donald...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Fortunately, the current CEO of McDonalds has already discovered immediate increases in revenue and profits by increasing wages and benefits of their frontline workers.

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Maybe that's why this guy is the "former" CEO. Henry Ford paid his workers above the going rate so they could actually purchase the goods they were making. But hey maybe, all those savings by displacing the workers can be used to pay increased taxes to feed the people who no longer have jobs.

Maybe it's time they start teaching in the MBA programs that if you displace all of your workers to increase profits, eventually you won't have any profits because there won't be anybody to purchase your goods and services.

I find it funny that these companies in the rush to automate exploited wage slaves out of their jobs forgets that the very product they sell depends on PEOPLE buying it. The more they push such people off of payrolls, the less number of people that will buy their product.

Fortunately, the current CEO of McDonalds has already discovered immediate increases in revenue and profits by increasing wages and benefits of their frontline workers.

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Kansas is doing a lot better in terms of education than, say, California.

Kansas is in a state of total collapse, including their education system. The entire state is in a freefall into the shitter, and it's been entirely run by conservative Republicans.

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

https://www.salon.com/2015/06/...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

but the religious bluenoses that are pushing this silly law might want to think about permitting the drag queen to use a stall in the ladies room and put his makeup back on over there instead.

As for surgical transgender persons -- how they hell is anybody going to ever tell? Seriously! Are we supposed to grab the short dumpy person who looks like they MIGHT be XX and check his prick to see if it is surgically created? Are we going to jam a speculum up into the vagina of a tallish woman with broad shoulders who looks like she MIGHT be an XY to see if there is actually a cervix up there, or do an adam's apple check on their throat with a biopsy to ensure that it isn't cancer or a thyroid problem?

Funny you should mention that. sexual assault was once attempted as a law in Virginia, where if a woman was considering an abortion, teh Doctor would have to by law, jam a vaginal probe inside her. Here's the vaginal probe, apparently just what gawd wants. http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Completely medically unnecessary, and you think that a woman wants this? Coercion, duress, ram the 2 foot long dingus up her vagina. The very definition of sexual assualt rape. Fortunately people who were not clinically insane managed to discard it, but the answer to your question is there are probably swords of gawd in North Carolina who would find inspecting people's genitals and assigning them which restroom they are allowed to enter as a fine occupation.

Until they see this young lady.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Mock

I'm trying to imagine sending her into a men's room. Of course, no one would ever think she was once a guy.

That woman was never ever meant to be a guy.

And the gawd's armor people of North Carolina would also discover a lot of interesting things with universal peen vagygy inspections. Where does one draw the line? There are people of ambiguous genitals on both genders. There is an entire range from Johnny Wad Holmes to micropenis to women with larger clitorises than the smallest penises, and some folks that are so ambiguous that no one could know.

As for what Jesus preached, it is important to remember that fundamentalist Christians take most of their ideas from the old Testament, and seem to think that the Sermon on the mount was the result of Jesus hanging out with too many liberals, who drugged him and made him say all that commie crap. Which is why they invented "Supply Side Jesus." Who would like to help the poor, but the stockholders are keeping him busy.

Instead of censoring the internet, we use superdelegates to fix elections, and let people say whatever they like. After all the opinion of the people are irrelevant so why not?

Actually rich people can enforce voting by making the state government take over the city government and make all sorts of bad decisions. Often this results in selling off the assets of the city and closing the local government.

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

4 US senators named so far, yet no denials or complaints by the senators in question yet. If this was fake, why wouldn't someone whose name is on it expose it as a fake?

No doubt they feel caught between the iron and the board.

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

4 US senators named so far, yet no denials or complaints by the senators in question yet. If this was fake, why wouldn't someone whose name is on it expose it as a fake?

Just Google "Cruz dominionist" for lots of links.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Ted-C...
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

The last one might be "liberal", but it has a video from Cruz's own father. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what is.

People I didn't mention that could be honest so far as I know:
Scott Walker
Ben Carson
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
John Kasich
Bobby Jindal
George Pataki
Jim Gilmore

We can take them one at a time:

Scott Walker:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Carson:

"A lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay."

Rand Paul:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/1...

Ted Cruz:
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

John Kasich:
http://mediatrackers.org/ohio/...

After that, the list becomes too trivial to fact-check. "George Pataki'? Really?

I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.

As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.

The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states: http://247wallst.com/special-r...

.... red states that siphon more money from the federal coffers (takers) than blue states (makers) who have to subsidize them so they're not even worse shitholes than they already are: http://wallethub.com/edu/state...

... perhaps following the path republicans in the white house that have increased government jobs more than democrats in the white house have, while failing to come close to the private sector jobs that are created under democrats: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://politicsthatwork.com/de...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.

Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?

At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.

Ever seen Network? The problem is that 'liberal agendas' tend to be a lot more photogenic and easier to communicate--for example, it's super-easy to show a sobbing hungry child, but not terribly easy to show in a single, dramatic picture that the chain of events that led to the kid's state is due to the long-term effects of the welfare system's perverse incentives upon the social fabric.

This is also why these problems get to be long-term, because it's very effective to promise to help those people to get yourself votes, but that in and of itself serves as a perverse incentive to make sure the problem doesn't actually get fixed... Just pick an acceptable lot of scapegoats to 'thank' for it!

Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?

At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.

the irreligious people are much more liable to vote for politicians who push social welfare programs ("working for the common good")

People voting to rob other people at gun-point (which is how taxes are collected) to pay for something, they themselves consider worthwhile are not "charitable" and driven not by ethics, but by simple greed: "I want a better road, I can not pay for it — ergo, I'll vote for forcing others to pay it for instead." It is so blatant, whenever a poor person speaks out against such "spreading the wealth around", he is accosted as "an idiot" acting against "his own interests". These arguments and accusations are proof, that the accusers' own motivation is not ethical, but egoistic, greed and envy — and that they are stupefied to find somebody else not sharing them.

Whereas the "grabbing whatever you can get" Republicans are happy to limit the "grabbing", to what's rightfully theirs, Illiberals aren't satisfied with such restrictions...

So the idea of religion giving people any kind of decent morals or ethics is blatantly false.

Your generalized hand-waving in support of this conclusion hereby destroyed, do you have anything better to offer as evidence?

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
http://archives.politicususa.c...

Or maybe they just decided that enough money has already been wasted on this junk science, and see it for what it really is.....

You mean the same guys who banned AP History classes because they, "make America look bad"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And how would Republicans know junk science, anyway? As they are fond of saying when asked about climate change or evolution or vaccinations or whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Well, I'm not a scientist". I mean, they're not generals either, but they all sure got an opinion on whether or not we should bomb Iran, ain't they? They're not God, but they sure as shit think they know what "God wants".

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/0...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

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

Those are the fucking people you trust to know good science from bad science? Jeez louise, I wouldn't trust them to know a graduated cylinder from their fuzzy pink asses.

Or maybe they just decided that enough money has already been wasted on this junk science, and see it for what it really is.....

You mean the same guys who banned AP History classes because they, "make America look bad"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And how would Republicans know junk science, anyway? As they are fond of saying when asked about climate change or evolution or vaccinations or whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Well, I'm not a scientist". I mean, they're not generals either, but they all sure got an opinion on whether or not we should bomb Iran, ain't they? They're not God, but they sure as shit think they know what "God wants".

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/0...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

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

Those are the fucking people you trust to know good science from bad science? Jeez louise, I wouldn't trust them to know a graduated cylinder from their fuzzy pink asses.

Google is not broken, do you need me to really provide LMGT for you? http://www.politicususa.com/20..., but I can find hundreds of links with a simple search. Now lets see if you man up and apologize for the ad hominem, but I'm guessing that you will simply try and yell louder.

Did you read your first reference? Or are you just some kind of special stupid?

Did you read my first reference? You are citing Darrel Issa's report, and my first source is all about pointing out that Darrel Issa's report is full of bad data. He lied. Made it up. Misled the American people. Intentionally. There is no scandal here and everyone not a Tea Party nutter knows it.

The politicization of the IRS should be the biggest scandal ever. How many other institutions are being used to pursue a political agenda instead of their true function?

Maybe because the politicization of the IRS is a fake scandal that even Newsmax and Fox News aren't covering anymore?

Seriously, it turned out that the IRS was actually covering Liberal Groups more than the Tea Party groups, something we would have known earlier except the GOP intentionally limited the audit to GOP groups. Oh, and the IRS is required by law to "harass" (read: investigate) Non-Profits in order to prevent the very thing that the GOP is freaking out about -- rich people like the Koch Brothers using fake non profits as a political machine. Note that the GOP isn't freaking out about people doing this, they're freaking out that they might be caught.

In other words, the real scandal is that the IRS somehow DIDN'T notice the Koch Brothers are breaking several dozen federal laws by astroturfing tea party "chartiies" in order to push anti-science, anti-climate change, and anti-worker agendas across the entire US.

All of this is due to the guy handling most of the GOP's fake scandals, Darrel Issa. He's got his thumbs in pretty much every fake scandal plaguing the Obama administration, in something that has come to be known as the Paula Jones Technique - make up fake scandals or inflate existing ones in hopes that your opponent (in this case, President Obama's Administration) can't do anything but react to the scandals.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/0...
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...
http://jezebel.com/5923898/rep...

Thomas is corrupt, a total money shill that votes the way he is told, and pushes the rest that way. His wife makes millions as a Koch lobbyist, yet he never recuses himself from cases that involve the people that pay his wife millions.
Relevant example (there are many many more like this):
http://crooksandliars.com/karo...

Scalia is also a corporate shill. He attends the Koch right-wing money events, and consistently votes the way the Koch brothers tell him to.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Roberts, Alito, and kennedy are less corrupt, but do not hesitate to take tremendous pay for "speaking engagements" at the right wing events and vote consistently with Koch interests.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Thomas is corrupt, a total money shill that votes the way he is told, and pushes the rest that way. His wife makes millions as a Koch lobbyist, yet he never recuses himself from cases that involve the people that pay his wife millions.
Relevant example (there are many many more like this):
http://crooksandliars.com/karo...

Scalia is also a corporate shill. He attends the Koch right-wing money events, and consistently votes the way the Koch brothers tell him to.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Roberts, Alito, and kennedy are less corrupt, but do not hesitate to take tremendous pay for "speaking engagements" at the right wing events and vote consistently with Koch interests.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Let's see: Jesse Ventura, a Navy SEAL, was waterboarded, and says it's definitely torture. Apparently the SEALs used to use waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training, but stopped as the inability of anyone to tolerate it was damaging morale. The linked article says the mean-time-to-failure was 14 seconds.

Hitchens was waterboarded, and said it's definitely torture.

Rather uniquely, Oliver North claims to have been waterboarded and says it's not torture. Personally I'd like him to spend a few seconds at the hands of the guys Hitchens went to. I suspect he'd change his mind rather quickly.

Sean Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded, but backed-out. He maintains it's not torture, and points to North.

I call BS. On average Obama signs only 38 executive orders per YEAR. On average only one more than Bush, and 10 less than Reagan https://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/16/myth-busted-analysis-reveals-president-obama-behaving-dictator.html

One of every four Bridges in the US is broken: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/08/07/one-of-every-four-u-s-bridges-is-broken/

The US government has a website specifically addressing problems with closed roads: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficinfo/

Millions in the US drink dirty water http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08water.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Energy poverty. Budget cuts in the US are causing people to freeze to death http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/20/republican-budget-cuts-literally-causing-people-freeze-death-streets.html