Slashdot Mirror

"Unscheduled learning opportunities"
Good lord take the sock out of your mouth you inhuman fuck

I don't know if this sounds soooo bad. It could be used as a more polite title for all the articles fact-checking presidential rally speeches and tweets -- or, literally, just about anything he says. For example, from Trump says Great Lakes have 'record deepness':

I support the Great Lakes. Always have. They're beautiful. They're big. Very deep. Record deepness.

(a) The Great Lakes are not among the deepest lakes in the United States, let alone the world. The deepest lake in the country is Crater Lake, a volcanic crater in southern Oregon with the deepest measured depth of 1,949 feet, according to Geology.com. Lake Superior is the Great Lake with the largest surface area in the U.S. at 31,700 miles. Its maximum depth is 1,332 feet, but it doesn't make the record books. (Even Lake Superior itself agrees.

(b) His 2020 fiscal budget proposal calls for a $270 million cut to the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, according to The Detroit Free Press. So he doesn't actually support them.

No, they pointed out that Clinton is a big-time globalist. She would have been 'the president from Goldman-Sachs'. A clearly bought-out 'centrist' Democrat.

If Clinton was president right now, we would be mired in a land war in Syria. Which, mind you, is all about US energy interests wanting a natural gas pipeline across Syria that Assad will not give them. Nothing more.

Ya, trump has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs. I just wish people would remove their heads from, and realize what are obvious good & bad decisions for the economy. Taking advice from experts in the field? No problem. Giving tax cuts to the super rich during economic good times? Dumb, because that's when you're supposed to be saving for the bad times.

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Uhhh, you're confusing things.

Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.

It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,

People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.

including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.

Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.

So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".

So... what was the point?

Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.

Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.

So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?

I feel like you w

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Uhhh, you're confusing things.

Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.

It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,

People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.

including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.

Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.

So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".

So... what was the point?

Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.

Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.

So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?

I feel like you w

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia, including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia, including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

What about the people who claim climate change is not a thing?
Or, hang on, yes the climate is changing, but not because of human activity.
Why would someone spend $400 million trying to influence voters if they didn't expect a return?
But OK, "Big Science" is the problem, sure.

I wouldn't be so sure, in fact, that in itself is part of Putin's propaganda effort to try and prevent dissent with the belief that everyone's for him, they're not.

Things have become much more precarious for him lately, mothers questioning why their sons are dying in Ukraine when they're not even by Putin's own claims supposed to be there, changes to pensions, and rising costs of living, coupled with continuously decreasing population preventing the sort of population growth needed to maintain growing prosperity is having a real effect.

I would argue that this increased censorship is symptomatic of precisely the fact that Putin knows he's becoming ever more vulnerable. Don't forget people were saying the same thing in the 80s, the collapse of the USSR came as an almost complete shock. I suspect the collapse of Putin's neo-USSR will be the same.

I know The Hill isn't everyone's cup of tea, but this opinion piece is actually quite a sensible consideration for Western policy makers given appeasement and attempts at welcoming Russia into the West, including talks about letting it join NATO even after the collapse of the USSR ended up as an abject failure that has come back to haunt us:

https://thehill.com/opinion/na...

We thought the Cold War ended in 1991, but for people like Putin it never ended, and whilst people like that do remain in Russia it can't ever be trusted as a state entity. It accuses the West of wanting to destroy it even when the West has made such moves, but it makes that accusation because that's what it fears most, so perhaps if we're going to be accused of that regardless, then that's actually what it most needs, and areas like Vladivostok could well become the center of a modern progressive successful independent nation in the East, and the same for St Petersburg in the West, with Moscow left isolated with a choice of cleaning up, or continuing it's rot.

Twelve years to Climageddon. You just pay for it. Just illegally shuffle money between PACs and LLCs. Unemployment is low because everyone is working two jobs. Need I go on?

They are starting new sites with a focus on local (State) level news. Most local news sites are owned by a handful of large companies.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

These people are obviously responding to a need for news that the public feels isn't being met.

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_...
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018...
https://thehill.com/homenews/m...

Simply because a website sources some of their news from large national sources does not make it fake news. Local news companies source stories from Reuters and the Associated Press all the time. Why do you think you can find the exact same article in a range of news outlets?

Presuming news to be fake simply because it comes from a different political perspective is hubris at best.

Rand Paul is an anti-vaxxer. https://thehill.com/policy/hea...

From the article you linked, Rand Paul says: "I believe that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh the risks".

I wonder what definition of "anti-vaxxer" you're using?

Rand Paul explained that although he thought vaccines are the right thing to do (and had his kids vaccinated) he believed that government persuasion rather than government force is the right means to achieve that. "I think it's important to remember that force is not consistent with the American story".

Do you define an "anti-vaxxer" as anyone who fails to believe that government should coerce people to vaccinate their children (e.g. in Rand Paul's case by preventing the children from attending school?)

For what it's worth, I believe that vaccines are the right thing to do, and I'm even more extreme in thinking it should be a criminal offence to fail to have your children vaccinated, and I think Rand Paul is wrong on this and most other issues. But the term "anti-vaxxer" can only stretch so far before it breaks, and I don't think it makes sense to call him an anti-vaxxer.

Reminder: Donald Trump is an anti-vaxxer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

The wife of Bill Shine, Trump's communications chief of staff, is also an anti-vaxxer.

https://www.usnews.com/news/po...

Rand Paul is an anti-vaxxer.

https://thehill.com/policy/hea...

Read this:
https://www.statesman.com/news...

Poor planning transcends energy sources.

And this:
https://thehill.com/opinion/en...
Then go on about how renewable energy makes more economic sense than nuclear power.

That's an article about not reducing carbon emissions as much as expected, not about the choices not making economic sense. They also didn't build storage, because it wasn't economically workable at the time, either. Now it is.

There's a name for doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

You mean your constantly promoting nuclear power and then being slapped down with the same arguments, or do you mean my constantly trying to appeal to your ability to reason when it appears to be vestigial at best?

Read this:
https://www.statesman.com/news...

And this:
https://thehill.com/opinion/en...

Then go on about how renewable energy makes more economic sense than nuclear power. Let's assume that nuclear power is not profitable now. What happens as energy prices continue to rise from government mandates for renewable energy like these? At some point those lines cross and nuclear power becomes profitable again.

Also, it took decades of investment, private and public, in wind and solar energy to bring the price down like it did. This investment included the ability to build prototypes for testing and cost estimation. You think that maybe we could do the same with nuclear power? Build some prototypes of new models so that we can test the technology and economics? As it is now the problem isn't the money, there's lots of private investors willing to put money in nuclear energy. The problem is the Democrats not allowing even the construction of prototypes. Just recently we saw some prototypes getting built because of Trump, Perry, and other Republicans that are taking energy independence seriously. What we get from Democrats is a very unscientific look at the problem. They just throw other people's money at the problem and hope it buys them enough votes for the next election.

You are very correct in that the Democrat distaste for nuclear power predates the GND. That goes all the way back to Carter with his sweaters and solar panels, at least that far back. 40+ years later and we still haven't replaced nuclear power with wind and solar power. I'm guessing in another 40 years it still won't happen.

There's a name for doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

fyi (and take note, Jay Z) cops cannot detain you, even for 30 seconds, if they are waiting for the K9 to show up.

https://thehill.com/regulation...

chris watts

PS everyone should know the info here.. Guilty or not., knowing the law WILL keep you out of jail! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
and (already mentioned in t his thread)
  https://www.browarddefender.or...

people are far less racist than they used to be

Yeah, about that:

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

From the time I was born until I finished grad school, neo-Nazis were in the news at most once or twice. Once when they marched in Skokie, Illinois, and maybe when George Lincoln Rockwell died. Today, white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other "third way" types are in the news every single day. And not just for some ridiculous display or meaningless statements, but for killing people, rioting and getting elected President.

So no, I'm not sure how you can say people are less racist than they used to be.

Here is a sitting Republican from Iowa asking publicly how "white supremacist" ever got to be seen as a bad thing.

https://thehill.com/homenews/h...

And here is an article about the rise of white supremacists in local police departments:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/n...

Only this time, make sure it doesn't get back up. Do something productive, like this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/na...

Crappy ass auto playing video ad covering half the page. Closed page.

Yes, increase sanctions on Russia to the point it's economy collapses, just like last time.

Only this time, make sure it doesn't get back up. Do something productive, like this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/na...

Russia has proven time and time again it can't function as a useful, worthwhile country. It's been a net drag on the world for over a hundred years, and has contributed nothing good in all that time (the only accidental exception being it ineptly plowed millions of it's citizens to their death against the Germans in WW2). The only solution to the Russia problem is to collapse it and break it up so that the constituent parts of Russia that are smart enough and willing to leave behind Putin and KGB era corruption and move forward can do so without the drag of the retards at the Kremlin in Moscow holding them back.

You really think neighborhood package thieves are going to leave this thing behind? Easiest $200 they ever made. Pets know a waste of time gimmick, they'll stay away from it. This is for lazy assholes without common sense.

https://thehill.com/opinion/he...

Pediatric neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman originally served as the expert medical witness for the government, which defends vaccines in federal vaccine court. He had testified that vaccines do not cause autism in specific patients.

Dr. Zimmerman now has signed a bombshell sworn affidavit. He says that, during a group of 5,000 vaccine-autism cases being heard in court on June 15, 2007, he took aside the Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers he worked for defending vaccines and told them he’d discovered “exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.”

Give it time, innocent people usually don't lie to investigators ;-)

When Democrats lie they "misspeak", if they're really important/influential, they simply refuse to testify under oath.

In 2015 Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, the party that has always pushed for Brexit and was instrumental in it happening went to St Petersburg with the who's who of Europe's far right as Russia hosted a far right convention for European far right politicians. Off the back of that meeting a number of parties received funding overtly, and likely more covertly.

UKIP and Brexit were largely bank rolled by a guy called Arron Banks, no one can explain where his wealth comes from because his companies haven't made enough money to account for his wealth, and his finances are used to issue donations for Brexit illegaly in improperly declared off shore accounts.

Arron Banks is married to Katia Zatuliveter, a Russian living in the UK, who, in 2011 was embroiled in a scandal where she was sleeping with a British MP who was on Britain's defence committee and in the region that houses one of the UK's main nuclear basis, to which she obtained access through her affair with him. She was still married to Arron Banks before, during, and after this affair, and remains so to this day. One Russian general after she was exposed declared her one of Russia's best intelligence assets.

We know therefore that Russia had a heavy hand in Brexit and UKIP, that Nigel Farage and Arron Banks are two peas in a pod, that Arron Banks has untraceable and unexplained funding sources which he pours into disrupting British politics on Nigel Farage's behalf.

On the morning that Wikileaks released the trove of DNC documents, Nigel Farage was caught sneaking into the Ecuadorian embassy to meet with Assange. Subsequently Farage went to the US to help Trump with his presidential campaign also and was there to meet with him immediately after he won the presidency.

Thus, we even know who one of Putin's key couriers was in this affair too; Nigel Farage. It's no coincidence that these people repeatedly refuse to condemn Putin and that they act as "election monitors" for Putin's rigged elections also.

The whole fucking affair has been blown wide open now, the only people who don't want to admit it are people who can't accept that they've been complicit on Russia's most propaganda attack on Britain and the US since the start of the cold war in that Putin, through his funding and propaganda support to ensure Trump became president and Brexit happened has managed to drive a wedge between the US and Britain and just about every single one of their allies in the world. Britain has been separated from Europe and the US, and Trump has been used to separate the US from pretty much every single one of it's allies; Canada, Europe, Turkey, and so on.

It's important that when the UK and US pick themselves back up that they embark ASAP on a plan such as this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/na...

Given we gave Russia a chance to join the civilised world after the cold war and they instead used it as an opportunity for subterfuge and to simply pick themselves back up and to create a neo-USSR, it's clear they can't be trusted. They had their chance and so the only viable solution to Russia once Trump is out the way and Brexit is reverted is to bankrupt Russia and split it up. We can do a deal with nations like China to allow China to retake territory Russia stole from it in the past, areas like St Petersburg are educated enough to turn into modern wealthy states, and the Caucasus should be allowed to stabilise as an Islamic state which would mean less Caucasus originated muslim extremists being exported to the rest of the world; as Putin's oppression of that region has simply created a terrorist recruitment hotbed for ISIS etc. This would further have the advantage of Assad falling and stabilisation of a more moderate middle East could emerge as a natural arc would then span between Turkey and Saudi Arabia North to South which would in turn create a barrier against Iran's export of terrorism to Lebanon and Israel and the Palestinians creating much greater opportunities for peace.

We must make Russia collapse at the earlier opportunity as it's clear they're capable of doing massive damage to us as they have done here.

If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?

A reasonable question. So how do we do this in something approximating real time with good accuracy? It's easy to say we should do it but HOW is a lot more complicated with a lot of sticky censorship and free speech and freedom of the press and civil rights issues. Even for private companies. How does one decide what constitutes good versus bad information without having editorial control like a newspaper? And how do you do this in an automated way? There is too much out there for Google (or any company) to have people reviewing all content.

I note that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) complained that doing an image search of him came up with a photoshopped image of his head on a Nazi uniform in the top row.

Adams publicly defended Trump's defense of white supremacists. That's how you get labeled a nazi and a white surpremicist. If he didn't like this then he shouldn't have publicly defended Trump's indefensible comments about them being "fine people". He's been a public figure long enough that he should know how this would play out.

It seems perfectly reasonable that people should start pushing back against Google's search manipulation, and the "right to be forgotten" seems to be a good first step.

I think the right to be forgotten stuff is a very blunt instrument that doesn't really get at the core problems.

Rather than spend money to bury power lines to prevent them starting fires, California has instead decided to launch a satellite and build a high speed train to nowhere.

Preventing fires isn't as cool as shiny gadgets. Californians want the other kids to think they're cool.

Duh, they are too busy hanging out at Starbucks drinking their mocha frapuccino, eating avocado toast and using their $1000 iphone to bitch about how rest of the country needs to buy a prius because reasons and how everything is rest of the country's fault.

Rather than spend money to bury power lines to prevent them starting fires, California has instead decided to launch a satellite and build a high speed train to nowhere.

Preventing fires isn't as cool as shiny gadgets. Californians want the other kids to think they're cool.

Nope. The FBI knew "there were intelligence community concerns about the reliability of the main evidence", and FISA Court wiretapping on US citizens requires vetted evidence.

I had to wake up two hours early today, so I'm headed to bed rather than spending much time on this, but here's the first hit on Google. Pelosi in 2013 voted for the following bill:

"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall establish .â.â. the 'Southern Border Fencing Strategy' to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing) .â.â. should be deployed along the Southern border. ...
The Secretary may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status until 6 months after .â.â. [the Secretary submits] a written certification that .â.â. there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing."

Pelosi stated at the time "every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support".

Here's video of her saying that:

https://thehill.com/homenews/h...

That's just the first link that came up in my quick Google search. I'm sure there's much "juicier" quotes, but I'm headed to bed. Have a great night.

I'd be interested in a citation for:

The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.

GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA, but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that, even after Trump's national address specifically suggesting both sides compromise to make a deal.

For a last time around example as well,

Graham was referring to a White House offer last January that would have codified DACA, plus implemented a variety of other controversial changes to immigration law, in exchange for border wall funding.

Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?

I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes. This creates a second-class citizen situation: yes, we get cheaper products, but we do so because we're supporting a type of slave labor where illegal immigrants are forced to earn significantly below the cost of living for their region, which is why you see them having to group up several families in a one-family house. They don't complain about any abuse or safety violations at their work place because they fear deportation is found out.

Random ID checks, not so much. It's unconstitutional to perform a warrant-less search, and this is what it amounts to. If you have cause to perform a check on someone's resident / citizenship status, then you perform it, such as when hiring a new employee.

That said, I'm not a Democrat. So gauging my opinion on the above isn't a representative sample of that if it's what you're looking for.

Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year [politifact.com]. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%. So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.

The $5 billion isn't for a complete border wall. It's what he's asking to build a section of it right now. The estimates are at $25 billion. And it's not a sunk cost. It's not like you build the wall then don't do anything for 20 years. You have maintenance, you have patrolling. Smugglers build tunnels to get past existing patrols. People vandalize existing barriers to get through right now.

Most importantly, even if you're right, and it would save us money, as I've stated, it's not the hot path for illegal immigration. If you apply those funds elsewhere, you can save more money. Trump talked about the cost of drug trafficking, but the majority of that cost would go away for free if we ended the drug war and just legalized all drugs. That would do away with enforcement costs, leaving only the societal costs. Taxation of those sales can be used to offset those societal costs.

Basically, it's not just a question of whether there are positive gains from investing the money on a border wall. Even if we have the money, there's an opportunity cost to not investing it someplace else with a higher return on investment. You'd think a businessman like Trump would understand that concept.

Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.

Civics lessons failed for this AC. The CR (which only provided funding until February 8th), was NOT passed. It was never submitted.

Overriding a veto requires 2/3 of BOTH houses (civics isn't taught in school anymore?). McConnell could not make that happen, nor could the Republican whip. You need plenty of Republicans to agree to it, and too many of them won't. Besides, he already tried a compromise by asking for $1.6 billion, and that couldn't get through Democrats either.

The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall.

What are you talking about? A recent poll showed that 67% of Americans support the wall. A very small minority, around 15%, oppose it. The rest don't care. The Wall is incredibly popular.

Which poll was that?

Quinnipiac, December 18, 2018: "U.S. Voters Say No Wall And Don't Shut Down Government. ... American voters oppose building a wall on the Mexican border 54 - 43 percent and say 54 - 44 percent the wall is not necessary to improve border security, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. This is the highest level of support for the wall since the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University National Poll first asked the question in November 2016."

"ABC 30 News, St Louis" (undated): "CBS Poll: 51% Of Americans Support Border Wall"

Fortune magazine, December 12, 2018: "69% of Americans Don’t Think Trump's Border Wall Is a Priority, Poll Says. ... More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a new poll by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. Only 28% of those polled answered that the border wall should be an immediate priority, while 19% replied it shouldn’t be an immediate priority, and 50% said it shouldn’t be a priority at all."

Huffington Post, January 3, 2019 (politically liberal): "Trump Says Country Wants Border Wall, But That’s Not What Polls Say"

"The Hill", December 28, 2018: "... a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill. The survey found that 56 percent of respondents do not support the president’s proposal to construct a wall along the southern border, compared to 44 percent who do."

Here's the problem - once they are in the US, then they can process through the system, and a lot of those (thanks to our sanctuary State and cities) just disappear.

Here's the problem — the official process for applying for asylum in the United States requires you to be within the United States.

No, it does not. You are either ignorant or lying. Asylum can be requested at the border, provided it is at a legal port of entry. You do not need to be in the US to request asylum.

Remember when Trump dismissed retired Navy Adm. William McRaven, and his critical comments of Trump, as a "Clinton Supporter?"

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/417330-trump-dismisses-criticism-from-vice-admiral-who-led-osama-bin-laden-mission

I suggest we do the same with Paul Whelan. He's a "Trump Supporter" and therefore not worthy of rescue or support by the nation.

No, not really. But this is what stupid in the Commander In Chief leads to. And if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, right? Right?!

https://thehill.com/homenews/a...

https://trofire.com/2019/01/01...

Former congressman and DNC chair Keith Ellison. There you go! He even attended May Day parade wearing a T-shirt stating he does not believe in borders.

The US government is already doing that via things like Operation Choke Point and what New York governor Cuomo is doing to the NRA.

Patreon has joined Google, various credit card network, and various hosting services in denying service to selected individuals and businesses in the name of political correctness.

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

ALL those stories were created by the Russians to discredit Clinton to get Trump elected.

WUT?!?!

Check the date on that NY Times story about Crooked Hillary! profiting from the Uranium One sale to Russian oligarchs - it's from April 2015 .

April 2015, dunderhead.

Jesus H. Mother Fucking Christ, you are stupid.

Calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn in the forest with dreams of getting buried, sprouting, growing into a tree, getting cut down, hauled to a lumber mill, hewn into a post, and planted as part of a fucking fence.

You utter fucking imbecile.

I cannot believe you're so gullible...

The sad thing is you probably think you're smart.

Astronomers worldwide are lamenting the fact you don't have a twin - the moment you two got too close, the miniature black holes that you think are brains would merge and we'd be able to see gravitational waves up close, probably leading to theories that unify gravity with other forces.

Of course, the concentrated combined stupidity would probably retroactively erase human knowledge back to ancient Greece...

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?

Found innocent?

By who?

Comey weasel-worded Hillary!'s "innocence" by claiming she didn't knowingly violate laws regarding the handling of classified data, which is actually irrelevant per the law. Not only that, that's factually false anyway, because Hillary! is known to have directed a subordinate to actually remove classification markings and send a secure fax via nonsecure email.

And why weren't Cohen or Flynn offered immunity prior to their FBI interviews, like Cheryl Mills was?

The list of double standards is endless - Hillary! got away with felonies and her aides got immunity, Trump aides go to jail after being forced to plead guilty to non-crimes. (And no, Trump's payoffs to women are NOT "illegal campaign contributions" - Trump's done those for years, which means by law they're not campaign contributions. Period. Full stop. The more you argue they are, the more you reinforce the fact that Trump's being held to a standard no one else has ever been.)

And unlike you, I have actual factual reporting linked in to back up my claims.

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

ALL those stories were created by the Russians to discredit Clinton to get Trump elected. I cannot believe you're so gullible - but there are millions of people like you in this country and coupled with Republican election rigging, we now have a baboon in the White House who ruined Obama's great economy, got played by the North Koreans like the idiot he is, saddled future generations with debt and environmental ruin, committed treason, made the CFPB worthless, we never got that trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that he promsied ... I'm getting tired of typing - I'd be here all day with Trump's failures.

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?

Why did someone so innocent need 9 lawyers and get special treatment?

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

Clapper lied to congress and wasn't charged.

Nope. An argument between Clapper and Meghan McCain on The View doesn't prove Clapper was lying.

Eric Holder lied to congress and wasn't charged.

Nope. An opinion piece only.

Hillary Clinton lied to congress and wasn't charged.

Nope. The article says Chaffetz and Goodlatte want to investigate to see if Clinton lied.

Is lying to Congress a crime?
Clapper lied to congress and wasn't charged.
Eric Holder lied to congress and wasn't charged.
Hillary Clinton lied to congress and wasn't charged.

However...
Michael Cohen did get charged for lying to Congress.

With selective prosecution like this, I think being an associate to Trump is a crime but lying to Congress is not. This is what tinpot dictators do. Pass laws that make everyone a criminal and only prosecute those you don't like. Its called a dictatorship, and is run by the DNC not Trump.

Vote Tyranny, vote DNC.

Sorry meant to add link to above:

https://thehill.com/homenews/s...

you do realize that /. is a conglomerate of more than just US citizens and therefore any and all political discussion on here is, technically speaking, coming from foreigners trying to influence political opinion. Its a very thin line where one draws a distinction between illegal and legal when first amendment rights are in question. Even fewer have the ability to see such a distinct line. If you react too broadly, you risk opening the door to suppression of free speech, if you do nothing you risk foreign-state sanctioned election tampering. Also, stop drinking the cool-aid, Jim Jones is already dead. There is no 'sides'. Both Democrats and Republicans are playing the same games, taking money from the same corporate elite. They both engage in insider trading without fear or prosecution. Neither party actually does a damn thing about the shit they campaign on (Repealing obamacare, amnesty, Repealing the Patriot Act, curtailing immigration, etc) once they get into power. If they solve those problems you have no reason to continue to elect them. Better to blame someone else and keep promising to fix it 'this time'. They are two sides of the same coin. Its a game and apparently someone has convinced you that you're fighting alongside Joan of Arc. There's no fucking Joan of Arc's on either side, just a bunch of generals doing the bidding of some behind-the-scenes Nebuchadnezzar. This is never going to stop repeating itself until people realize that this is a back-and-forth game being played to achieve a long-term strategy. Look at what things stay in existence despite the constant back-and-forth (FISA, Patriot Act, PIPA, NDAA) all things one party criticizes when the other has majority control, and yet these things pass with votes like 98-0. If people keep electing insiders and falling for the cool-aid, things will only continue and never reverse themselves.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
https://mic.com/articles/20835...
https://thehill.com/homenews/s...

https://thehill.com/policy/tec...

I guess that's why The Hill, a left-of-center site, reported that the BBC, Fox News, and PBS were the most trusted news brands. And that CNN brought up the rear. That's probably why Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC - combined.

If he hasn't been able to stop investigations against his allies and trigger them against his enemies it's not for lack of trying.

You are confirming my point — he does not dare to even pardon his friends, which is his legal prerogative. Much less can he order anyone locked up, just as I said.

A President is saying "I'm planning to use this prisoner as leverage in a trade war". How is that not political?

It is political, but the politics are foreign, not domestic. For the test to pass, it has to be domestic politics.

The way you are trying to interpret it, every prosecution is political — if the prosecutor is (or may be) eyeing running for an office, as so many do.

Business groups in the state and wireless carriers are against the proposal
https://thehill.com/policy/tec...

You do realize your state is controlled top to bottom by left wing politicians ?