Slashdot Mirror

The Republicans specifically warned that this "treaty" was not a treaty and did not have the force of law. The Democrats raised hell about that too. See Republicans Draw White House Ire for Warning to Iran. As they warned, "The next President could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

This is just one of several examples of President "I Won" Obama's "a pen and a phone" strategy to avoid dealing with Republicans. The only thing that went wrong is that Hillary Clinton wasn't elected for the next eight years to continue them and instead we got a guy with an eraser.

Whether you think the agreement was for good or for bad, nothing happened here that should be a surprise to anyone. Don't forget that Obama reversed a lot of Bush orders, too. Why did anyone expect Obama orders to go untouched?

There's a reason that the US Constitution makes it hard to do things without a consensus, and especially makes it hard for a President to rule by decree. Don't take shortcuts if you want something to last.

Sorry,

No need to apologize, just provide a citation that supports your argument. Otherwise, you really are sorry. A sad, sorry sack. Now look what you did, you baited me into proving that you know jack about shit, and jack just left town.

Even on volatile topics like pro-choice/life there is middleground that gets left off the table because it doesn't invoke an emotional response in their demographic ... making adoption easier comes to mind.

You do not want the government to make adoption easier, they are already not doing due diligence to make sure adopted children are not sold into slavery, eaten for sunday brunch, or whatever.

Not irrelevant since the 14th Amendment
One day, the SCOTUS will have to look this in the face, and the "feature" to promote slave states over the majority will be ended.
Meanwhile it remains important to remind Americans that WE are smarter than the minority rule voters.

Please explain how knowing how much money each hospital, doctor, or clinic is going to charge you is a BAD thing?
The "fucked up" pricing practices in the US have their biggest help in that NO ONE knows (not even the doctors) what things cost.

Time magazine did an article (no paywall) a while back during which they exposed that the same doctor, preforming the same procedure, could charge wildly different costs without even being aware of it. Requiring doctors and hospitals to publicize the prices is the first, and most important step, step towards fixing

Did you find a source for the full text?

1 second of googling later...

It was reported last year and recently that national Buddhists use Facebook as a channel to post things that help to incite violence towards minority Muslims called the Rohingya in Burma. A monk called Wirathu was banned, by the government, from public preaching, and that included Facebook.

More information:
A War of Words Puts Facebook at the Center of Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis
Rohingya crisis: How we got here
U.N. Fact Finders Say Facebook Played a 'Determining' Role in Violence Against the Rohingya
Myanmar: UN blames Facebook for spreading hatred of Rohingya
Is Facebook playing a part in the Rohingya genocide?
The Facebook official who oversees the news feed says his team loses sleep over the site's alleged role in violence in Myanmar

I've seen this effect with any minority. A member of an identifiable minority who leads an organization and does something obnoxious - layoffs, re-orgs, whatever - it's the whole minority that's held accountable. I've seen it with Jews, Mormons, Indians. But if some guy comes in with a reputation for ruthlessness - remember Chainsaw Al? And the rest of those bosses in that article? No one blames the entire majority for the behavior of a few members.

Remember Timothy McVeigh? Or any of a host of serial killers? Same phenomenon.

Don't get me wrong - I disagree with the implications of the comment and I'm telling you why. But I believe in free expression and am opposed to things like the parent comment being censored.

I've seen this effect with any minority. A member of an identifiable minority who leads an organization and does something obnoxious - layoffs, re-orgs, whatever - it's the whole minority that's held accountable. I've seen it with Jews, Mormons, Indians. But if some guy comes in with a reputation for ruthlessness - remember Chainsaw Al? And the rest of those bosses in that article? No one blames the entire majority for the behavior of a few members.

Remember Timothy McVeigh? Or any of a host of serial killers? Same phenomenon.

Don't get me wrong - I disagree with the implications of the comment and I'm telling you why. But I believe in free expression and am opposed to things like the parent comment being censored.

I can attest to this. Almost every time I go diving, the tourist pamphlets and nearby sea museums and info pictures show beautiful vibrant colors. And then I go diving and I see so much less color than the images I'd been set up with. This is not anecdotal. This is already seriously alarming, people. Hopefully, there's a lot of wrong scientists out there. Probably, they're not.

Vote. Or, if you're flippant about math, statistics, and science, don't.

Many drivers see it as a full-time, long-term job.

About 20% of Uber drivers work full time (at least 35 hours per week).

More than half work 15 hours or less.

Citation: Survey of Uber drivers from 2015.

I wonder if accepting credit cards and using the network might run afoul of federal wire fraud laws should the feds ever go back to actively pursuing cannabis crimes in states that have legalized or decriminalized pot ?

http://time.com/4685414/jeff-s...

"A few" ... ::sigh:: It's 17% of Christians in the United States, according to a poll that Time Magazine did in 2006.

It is a victory for consumers, who would otherwise be forced to pay much higher prices for automobiles.

In the spirit of Good Friday, I'm not going to call you a dumb sonofabitch.

http://time.com/money/4702421/...

The extreme warming predictions have proven wrong. We are heading into a solar grand minimum. The only people who need to worry about global warming are the alarmists who have staked their careers on it.

OK, you're a dumb sonofabitch.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...

Indeed, this is idiotic.

There is ample evidence showing that coffee is surprisingly good for you. Saying it has to be labelled a "carcinogen" is doing nothing to help anybody's health, but is contributing to people ignoring warning labels, which is not a good thing. California's laws are stupid and counterproductive.

  http://time.com/4116129/coffee-longer-life/

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimer...

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/this-is-your-brain-on-coffee/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/16/456191657/drink-to-your-health-study-links-daily-coffee-habit-to-longevity

Yep, this is an example of someone who is successful in one field, in this case legalities, who gets an ego and thinks that they are experts in another field without study. This judge has scant evidence and is jumping to the conclusion that this coffee is carcinogenic without any kind of corroborating evidence to support that conclusion. This is actually scary, you would expect a Judge to have a high standard for evidence, but not in this case.

I am forced to wonder what is leveraging this decision, because it certainly isn't evidence or a careful weighing of facts, rather I wonder who has dirt on him that wants to hurt the coffee industry or short coffee futures and make a quick buck.. something fishy going on here. Stay tuned, I am willing to bet more to the story is going on here along the lines of lobbying by the coke corporation and funding of junk science and FUD about their sugar water actually being healthy (and funding quack doctors like Michael Greggor to say that high sugar diets are actually healthy.. when the facts completely disagree over mountains of evidence and an exploding diabetes epidemic..) Never underestimate the level of evil and public harm that can be caused by lobbyists when they get in attack mode!

TLDR; There is not sufficient evidence to state that Coffee causes cancer, if it does it is such a small effect that it is far below statistical significance and therefore not able to be proved by research done on the topic thus far. This judge is playing a scientist and is a text book example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Indeed, this is idiotic.

There is ample evidence showing that coffee is surprisingly good for you. Saying it has to be labelled a "carcinogen" is doing nothing to help anybody's health, but is contributing to people ignoring warning labels, which is not a good thing. California's laws are stupid and counterproductive.

  http://time.com/4116129/coffee-longer-life/

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimer...

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/this-is-your-brain-on-coffee/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/16/456191657/drink-to-your-health-study-links-daily-coffee-habit-to-longevity

> the richest man TO EVER EXIST

Demonstrably untrue. I know you people are all into "alternative facts". But in the real world, that's called bullshit. And when you lead off with lies, there's no reason to pay any heed to anything else you people say:

https://www.independent.co.uk/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://time.com/money/3977798/...

Yeah, they probably bought and/or traded information with ISPs and Google and credit agencies, and other sources I've probably never heard of. They don't need 3rd party data any more.

I've worked for several government contractors, I was an IT Security analyst and then an IT Security Engineer for 4 years at the Social Security Administration until 2012, and I've done IT systems engineering and currently work as an IT Security Engineer at a major broadcasting corporation.

I have a passing understanding of computer networking from CISCO-centric classes taken in high school in 2002 and 2003. I transferred my high school classes to college under an academic agreement, took a few basic sciences, and got an Associate's of Applied Science. I have a CompTIA Security+ certification from 2003.

My first office job--the one that came after Best Buy--started with a confused-looking internal recruiter (not an agency) asking me a bunch of questions about how I know what all these tools are when I have no relevant educational background. I told him I have strange hobbies and no friends. They pulled in some engineers, we talked about security tech, and they hired me. I helped with penetration tests, designed security policy for major defense contractors, and wrote the final reports for security assessments.

I learned about intrusion detection systems at Social Security's National Computer Center in Woodlawn, where I helped deploy a new IDS product (Google doesn't tell me what it is, so I'm not telling you what we used), worked out the best ways to use the tools available, and trained our analysts to use customized dashboards restricted to custom searches so as to essentially summarize only the data involved in a particular incident as we turned interesting and anomalous behavior into a logical description of the incident at hand.

Right now, an auditor is training himself to be a CISO, while mentoring me in performing broad-scope ISO27000 audits of our business--the kind of thing you typically outsource to IBM, EY, PWC, Qualys, and others.

I've been through the job market without college.

More than that, though: you seem to have missed that maybe the degree you chose in 2008 will get you into an overbloated job market in 2012, while the next degree over would have gotten you into a market with a desperate labor shortage. You can still get a job:

For men, the jobs with the highest rate of overqualification in 2014 included retail salespersons, customer service reps, and food service managers. For women, they were secretaries and office support workers, customer service reps, and teacher assistants.

... at Best Buy, working next to a guy who dropped out of high school and gets paid the same.

Women are actually using their degrees better--maybe. I actually came within 8 credits of an Office Administration degree, qualifying me as a secretary or office support worker. Teacher assistants also can benefit from a little education in education. Of course, I've met plenty of teachers with English or Math degrees and no Education degrees.

So I got into a high-demand job market without an appropriate degree, while people with Bachelor's degrees regularly end up at McDonalds. You want the appropriate degree to match the high-demand market when you get out of college, not the one that's in demand when you go in--which is speculation. Fail it and you might end up at McDonalds; you'll certainly end up with lower pay.

And it's not like we have a decent immigration law on the books already that congress refused to fund.

Republicans are cutting off their noses to spite their face. Business needs cheap labour in order to make gobs of money.

Immigrants (legal or no) are a positive net income for America.

Tariffs are stupid. As you say, they are basically a tax on consumers and companies which use the products as an input, for the minor benefit of the typically much smaller group which makes whatever the tariff is on.

There are plenty of Republicans who are against tariffs, even among the politicians. Pre-Trump, it was a signature issue for many Democratic politicians. In 2016 it moved to about half of the members of both parties against tariffs. Trump has "convinced" some Republicans on the issue, but my cynical nature is that it's an issue popular among ignorant-of-economics blue collar workers, so it's being used as a wedge to help keep their rust-belt/midwest votes away from the Democrats.

No, Obama didn't employ the same strategies as Cambridge Analytica

Oh, yes, he did:

because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. [...] More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts, asking their friends to register to vote, give money, vote or look at a video designed to change their mind.

a community organizing tool, which is pretty much the opposite of stealing data in order to engage in psychological warfare.

The only difference is in the spin — one's "community organizing" is another's "psychological warfare". From the same source:

A geek squad in Chicago created models from vast data sets to find the best approaches for each potential voter.

In other words, having the misfortune of being a "friend" with an Obama-fan, allowed this "geek squad" to "steal" your data — and subjected you to the same "psychological warfare".

No, it was not particularly wrong back then. And it is not wrong now either.

BS. The distinctions Obama's bootlickers are trying to make in that article are without difference. There is nothing illegal or even unethical about Obama campaign's use of Facebook data, but neither is there anything wrong with CA's use of it. Can we use your FB-data for research? Yeah, sure. Ok, thank you...

Your article outright lies too. For example, its claim that

Notice that this was an invitation that came directly from the Obama campaign, which the volunteer could either chose to accept or reject.

is contradicted by the perfectly non-controversial 2012 description of Obama campaign's approach:

That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters.

See? Just by having the gross misfortune of being known to an Obama-backer, made you appear on Obama's radar, without your permission.

And it worked:

More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts.

Again, it was not wrong then — but it also is not wrong now, however scandalized the hypocrites may pretend to be.

In 2012, Facebook actively cooperated with the Obama campaign to give them everything CA got - and more.

Carol Davidsen, who worked as the Director of Media Analytics for the Obama campaign, has gone public with what they did back then. She said that the Obama campaign did things they (the Facebook staffers) didn't know were possible, but Facebook didn't stop them:

They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side

Of course, back then, everyone loved it and told each other that it was the way of the future. Then it turned out that more than just young Left-wing voters used Facebook, and suddenly this is all a problem.

Did the Obama campaign break Facebook's ToS? Probably. We won't ever know for certain, though, because Facebook decided to support Obama rather than protect its customer's privacy.

Original post by Puffin Fitness: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/85p30j/deletefacebook_movement_gains_steam_after_50/dvz4y6o/

* * *

In 2009, Russian social-media mogul Yuri Milner invested $200 million into Facebook at a valuation of $10 billion dollars without voting rights or a seat on the board. To understand this investment, at the time the world was going through a global recession and Facebook's general valuation had dropped from the $15 billion from the year prior to $4-$6 billion in 2009.

https://www.cnet.com/news/facebooks-valuation-the-cheat-sheet/

One company did offer a valuation of $8 billion, but with a seat on the board, which Zuckerberg was strongly against. In other words, Yuri Milner invested in Facebook when they were strapped for cash and at an inflated price without voting rights or a seat on the board. That's an amazing deal for Zuckerberg!

Here's Yuri Milner and Mark Zuckerberg hanging out for an interview: https://techcrunch.com/2009/05/26/mark-zuckerberg-and-yuri-milner-talk-about-facebooks-new-investment-video/

The deal was coordinated by Alisher B. Usmanov, a Russian oligarch that earned his fortune managing steel mill subsidiaries for Gazprom.

Usmanov spent six years in prison for fraud and embezzlement in the 80's.

In 2008, Usmanov fired a publisher and editor at one of Russia's most respected news paper after it published detailed accounts of Russian election fraud.

It is said, "His ties to the Kremlin and Facebook have stirred concerns that he might influence the companyâ(TM)s policies in subtle ways to appease governments in markets where Facebook is also an important tool of political dissent, such as Russia." This was in 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/technology/a-russian-facebook-bet-pays-off-big.html

Usmanov is close friends with Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich.

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

Ivanka Trump and Wendi Deng are good friends with Abramovich's then wife, Dasha Zhoukova. Here they are watching a tennis match.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784716/Ivanka-Trump-Karlie-Kloss-Wendi-Deng-Murdoch-watch-Open.html

The leak of the Paradise Papers revealed the money Yuri Milner used to invest into Facebook came from Gazprom, a US sanctioned Russian oil and gas company, at one point owning 9% of the company.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-the-paradise-papers-leak-facebook-yuri-milner-facebook-twitter-russia

Soon after, Zuckerberg and Milner became friends, meeting monthly:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zuckerberg-got-early-business-advice-194957335.html

And even spoke together in November 2015 at the 2016 Breakthrough Prize Ceremony.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-the-paradise-papers-leak-facebook-yuri-milner-facebook-twitter-russia

In May 2012, Milner attended Zuckerberg's wedding. In 2014, Milner moved to California home he paid 100% above value on.

http://time.com/5011000/paradise-papers-tax-ha

lock up Trump first, go through due process second.

You failure shames your clan.
To fail so utterly and completely, you must be trolling.

The Obama campaign invented the deep-dive into Facebook data for their 2008 and 2012 campaigns. They not only openly bragged about doing what CA did and far more, but somehow the media fawned all over him for it. Odd, that:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07...

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

http://swampland.time.com/2012...

https://www.technologyreview.c...

And these:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07...

https://www.technologyreview.c...

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

http://swampland.time.com/2012...

They BRAGGED about doing the same things (and worse) than what they're accusing Cambridge of doing.

If anything, your shadow profile was just noise to the analytics. I'm assuming the data were used to rile up prospective conservative/Drumpf (his real name) voters. I don't know what your politics are, but it's not like the company is going to know how you voted recently or going to be able to advertise directly to you.

In reality, despite all the affirmative action, all the "free" government funded education especially in Europe, all those attempts to put more girls into STEM courses, etc.

You
may
be
mistaken.

That's only Hawaii, where we need to tape all the souls of the Galactic Confederation to tape strips in spacecraft shaped like B-52's and drop a thrermonuclear weapon on them. Of course, the last time we tried that, we wound up with all the leftover Scientologists to clean up.

I could not possibly have made that up, it was L. Ron Hubbard in the secret teachings of "Operating Thetan VIII", the highest inner level of Scientology. The old Time magazine article about the cult is at http://content.time.com/time/m...

Steele Dossier which was used as justification for FISA warrant to spy on the opposition campaign

As has been publish widely but you choose to ignore, there was other justification, specifically George Papadopoulos's drunken leak and the fact that carter page himself bragging that he was an advisor to the Kremlin.

It would be a dereliction of duty for the FBI to not spy on a political campaign that is a riddled with Russian intermediaries as this one. We don't even have all the facts yet and we've had 3 people plead guilty to lying to the FBI about these Russian contacts, including the deputy campaign chairman and the man who became the national security advisor. The campaign chairman is up to his eyeballs in debt to a Russian oligarch.

However, there may be something to this Uranium one thing, we'll see.

Also, I believe they found those missing texts.

Could you elaborate on what "abuses" have been found while spying on the guy who bragged about, and I quote, "serv[ing] as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin", and who had previously been caught up in a Russian spy ring?

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

Thiel, who himself is gay, has supported gay rights causes such as the American Foundation for Equal Rights and GOProud. He invited conservative columnist Ann Coulter, who is a friend of his, to Homocon 2010 as a guest speaker. Coulter later dedicated her 2011 book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, to Thiel. Thiel is also mentioned in the acknowledgments of Coulter's "Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole". In 2012, Thiel donated $10,000 to Minnesotans United for All Families, in order to fight Minnesota Amendment 1.

He's was anti gay marriage in 2012, but he's not anti gay. Wasn't Obama still denying he supported gay marriage back in 2008?

http://time.com/3816952/obama-...

2008: As a presidential candidate, Obama pledges to repeal DOMA and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which banned the service of openly gay troops in the U.S. military
He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian - for me - for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix," he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum in April.

So Thiel's great sin was not coming round to supporting gay marriage as opposed to civil partnerships quickly enough. So clearly he has to be outed and shamed publicly. After all we can't have those filthy homos straying off the vote plantation and thinking they're allowed to not change their opinion when the Democrats tell them to.

Did you even know the story about the Florida shooter being part of a white nationalist movement was debunked and retracted?

That's not exactly a fair characterization. The ADL spoke with someone calling himself Jordan Jereb and claiming to be a member of a white supremacist group who said Cruz had participated in training exercises with the Republic of Florida (the white supremacist group).

Florida White Supremacist Group Admits Ties to Alleged Parkland School Shooter Nikolas Cruz

(Note, they have a big Update which includes information indicating it's probably not true)

He also told that to the AP and to the Miami Herald.

Then someone posting under the name Jordan Jereb wrote:

“There was a legit misunderstanding because we have MULTIPLE people named Nicholas in ROF, and I got a bunch of conflicting information and I have not slept for like 2 days.”

White Nationalist Appears to Disavow Connection With School Shooter

The Sheriff in news conferences said they had not been able to confirm any connection to the ROF.

In the end it all seemed to have been orchestrated by trolls.

How white nationalists fooled the media about Florida shooter

The MSM reported updates as they came out. Some of the fringe sites did not report any of the updates and I wouldn't count "Woke Sloth" as MSM. I had never heard of them before this but apparently that was one such site passed around on FB.

Maybe sites like Woke Sloth (and Breitbart and InfoWars) are not good alternatives to the MSM.

However: this is one of the most wasteful and stupid things I've ever heard of. Only some rich dude(s), with apparently nothing better to do with their money and time, would waste 42 million dollars on some shit like this. How many poor people could benefit from judicious application of $42M? Charities? Development projects? How much would Habitat for Humanity, for instance, be able to accomplish with that much money?

Noting that the recent US Presidential Inaugural events (swearing-in and party) cost between $175M and $200M. The events for Obama and Trump were both in that ballpark, though Trump's was the more expensive.

Check out this cached story from Time:
Alleged Gunman Nikolas Cruz Was in White Supremacist Group

Now compare with the current version:
Alleged Gunman Nikolas Cruz Was in White Supremacist Group

Apparently, all of this started out as a prank from 4Chan, and it was covered by a wide number of news outlets.

The news outlets will often do retractions (as in the case of Time), but those are almost never publicized as widely as the original stories, and the damage is done. I understand that mistakes happen, but how many people are still under the impression that Cruz was a member of the ROF? If anything, retractions should be more publicized than the original stories.

Next they'll tell us twins are not exactly the same person.

Too late, they've already told us a person might not be exactly the same person (aka Vanishing twin syndrome)...

Name a piece of information, known by Christopher Steele to be false, spread as if it were true.

But first off, let's back up. Who is Christopher Steele? From Wikipedia:

From 1990 to 1992, Steele worked under diplomatic cover as an MI6 agent in Moscow, serving at the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Moscow.[7][9] Steele was an “internal traveller”, visiting newly-accessible cities such as Samara and Kazan.[4]

Steele's identity as an MI6 officer was one of 115 names Her Majesty's Government attempted to suppress through a DSMA-Notice in 1999.[10][11] He returned to London in 1993, working again at the FCO until his posting to Paris in 1998, where he served under diplomatic cover until 2002.[9][12][13][14] In 2003, Steele was sent to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as part of an MI6 team, briefing Special Forces on "kill or capture" missions for Taliban targets, and also spent time teaching new MI6 recruits.[9] By 2006, Steele was heading the Russia Desk at MI6.[4][7][15]

Steele's expertise on Russia remained valued, and he served as a senior officer under John Scarlett, Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), from 2004 to 2009.[15] Steele was selected as case officer for Alexander Litvinenko and participated in the investigation of the Litvinenko poisoning in 2006.[9] It was Steele who quickly realised that Litvinenko's death "was a Russian state 'hit'".[15]

Not exactly some fly-by-night amateur. And rather amusing that you'd accuse someone whose job had been spying on Russia and later investigated the Litvinenko poisoning, determining it to be a Russian hit, of "spreading Russian propaganda"

Steele - again, the former head of MI6's Russia desk - had been an FBI source for years prior, where he had proved useful in a number of investigations unrelated investigations.

During the last election, Steele was hired - first by Republicans, then Democrats - to research Trump. And that he did. It's not even clear that he knew who was the source of his funding; he worked for Fusion GPS. The so-called "Steele Dossier" is not a curated/filtered "report", but rather a series of independent memos from varying sources - and was never presented as anything else. He was paid to collect information, not to analyze and curate it. Some of the information from the dosier that wasn't public at the time has since been independently confirmed. The vast majority has been neither confirmed or denied.

Concerning the Carter Page "memo" from Trump transition team member Devin Nunes (yes, he was part of Trump's own transition team... "Hey, let's investigate ourselves!") suggests that A) the Steele dossier was the foundation of getting a warrant on Page, B) it did not inform them that the dossier had been paid for by a political entity, and C) the fact that it had been noted that Steele made a statement about being worried about Trump becoming president disqualifies him as a biased source.

Except:

A) Page had been on the radar long beforehand, having previously been caught up in a Russian spy scheme and having not only made numerous statements condemning the US and supporting Russia (on Russian TV), but even claimed to be a Kremlin representative. (Seriously, if the FBI hadn't been spying on this guy they should all have been fired for incompetence)

B) The warrant application did state that the dossier had been paid for by a political entity; Nunes's complaint has now amusingly morphed into "the font size was too small".

C) Intelligence courts generally presume by default that sources have some sort of motive, because as a general rule, people who aren't motivated don't act as sources. Furth

He's an awful human being

And yet, you still have to call him "President" — and I smile every time I realize this. Imagining the expressions on the faces of your kind is why I for one started rooting for Trump, back when Jeb! was the favorite among Republicans.

But, of course, your spectacular hysterics, the exposure of your hypocrisy (such as the sudden love for the FBI and the NSA) are mere gravy on top of the economic boom, the actual energy independence), destruction of ISIS, and the bloodying of Russia's nose.

and should be removed

For that to happen, there must be proof — beyond reasonable doubt — of high crimes and misdemeanors having been committed by him. Seems rather unlikely, because — after 9 months of a Special Prosecutor busily prosecuting, you not only can't substantiate it, you can't even state a coherent accusation.

"Clueless", "narcissistic", "son of a bitch" (nice insult against his mother, BTW, congratulations) — these aren't evidence of a misdemeanor, much less of a crime. TFA does not help your goals of sabotaging the President in the slightest.

TRY to do better next time, or at least don't bother voting.

How interesting... So, you openly admit, you wish to disenfranchise all those, who vote differently from you... I wonder, what possible beef you can have with Russia...

You can be butthurt all you want

You certainly seem to be much more butthurt, than I can possibly wish you to be. Thank you for this post, it delighted me on a rainy afternoon. Have a great President's Day weekend.

He was in this one.

So, just curious: which state militia was this nutjob in?

http://time.com/5161203/republ...

Nice try, but PepsiCo actually seems to care about women in their own weird tone-deaf corporate way.

And you are at least partly wrong: http://time.com/5019182/george...

In that particular case, there's no real doubt about the groping - he's a well-known lecherous geezer who makes a joke about "David Cop-A-Feel" before grabbing someone's ass, and that was consistent with the claim - he admitted as much and apoligized. It really just proves my point though - that in the vast majority of cases, claims are not manufactured, and when they are, they are usually easy to disprove. (There was one politician where claims were made recently, but he had solid proof that he wasn't even in the same state during the dates in question).

Whether or not something is actionable in a legal sense has nothing to do with whether it is moral or not - a murder is a murder, even 20 years after the fact, and a rape or any other kind of sexual crime continues to be morally wrong, whether it has been 1 year or 30. It's also directly relevant to concerns about the character of political aspirants, or at least it ought to be. It's tragic that the party that used to stand on "family values" and morals has been furiously defending adultery, sexual assault and pedophilia in its candidates.

"suggesting he is a sexual criminal." And that is the problem right there. There is no actual proof that would stand up in a court of law (or the statue of limitations has long since expired) so all you are engaging in is character assassination, and that is total bullshit and a travesty of legal fairness. This is exactly the reason we have a statue of limitations, but it doesn't go far enough since public persons cannot sue for libel or slander. We MUST make it illegal to make criminal allegations after the statue of limitations has expired (at the least) or fix the damn law regarding liability for libel and slander so that this can actually go to court.

I am not saying that some women may not chose to come forward, that is entirely possible, but that is their choice. They are making a choice, and like the rest of us they have to live with that choice the rest of their lives. If they make that choice, the can't wait 30 years and then come back with totally un-substantiateable, at that point baseless accusations, because at that point it is un-knowable and un-provable if they are true or false, and to have a society based on justice, we can't have that shit.

Trump has had 3 wives and a number of affairs. No one is disputing that. But for women to come out years later to complain is just character assassination by weaponizing past lovers.

And you are at least partly wrong: http://time.com/5019182/george...

Yes and the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic. If feminism was about "equality of the sexes" then mission accomplished across the board. The movement and ideology is irrelevant in the western world. There is no end goal for feminism because it isn't about equality in opportunity or legality. It's about women supremacy and getting back at men for history which is why we see the BBC males taking pay cuts for no reason other than the long debunked gender pay gap myth and virtue signaling despite reports stating that there was no discrimination. Feminism is about equal outcomes which is contrary to meritocracy and why we see the bar lowered in many areas to get more women in. Feminism is about treating women different because being in the same room as men is oppressive. Lowering the bar, vengeful practices, and segregation is not equality!

Even you assume there are not educational and professional opportunities for women equal to men yet I haven't seen a single male only scholarship for STEM ( I bet you can't find one either) nor have I seen any male affirmative action in STEM. The favoritism is toward women so the institution can check their little quota box and feel smug about it and we see that with younger women making more and are preferred over men for STEM faculty. I have seen more opportunity for women these days than men. What are you talking about other than the outcomes you don't like?

Men and women are different so personal and social "equality" is code for "we want more because equality of outcome using bad measures". Using bad measures (gender pay gap) to promote bad policy (vindictive practices) and treating women different (lower standard and segregation) will never achieve "equality" in any true sense of the word. Forcing equal outcomes is the antithesis of a free society.

Here are some non-paywall lists:

http://time.com/5015204/harvey...
https://consequenceofsound.net...

AmiMoJo spat out an anecdotal "seems like the majority lean to the right". Unless someone does an actual evaluation then his statement is bullshit.

But hey, if we're going to go with bullshit anecdotes how about - the vast majority of the accused are from the entertainment industry and the vast majority of the entertainment industry lean heavily to the left.

You've got so many concepts all mixed up that I'm not sure where to begin... you seem to think that somehow democracy is going to prevent a government from abusing a monetary policy.

A democracy has never prevented this - if anything, a democracy has sped decline due to the people (demos) voting power (kratia) into their own pockets - welfare and social programs. The first and best example of this was Athens violating treaties with neighboring cities by stealing money and resources that were intended for the defense of all the Greek world, and instead spending it all on local fortifications and public works project - i.e. - the Parthenon. That pissed off many, especially the Spartans, and after a little skirmish of 30 years, Athens fell, Sparta was weakened, and the Greek world never recovered. The Macedonian punk named Alex wasn't Greek, but that is another matter...

Lets fast forward a bit to an empire established as a representative democracy - Rome. Due to years of over spending and failed social and foreign policy, they went broke and tried to solve their fiscal problems with regulation.. That didn't work out too well for them, resulting in every last vestige of their economy running off to the far corners of their empire to escape regulation . Byzantium didn't get the memo and lingered in relative isolation while contemplating their navels for a thousand years. The best and brightest of the eastern half of the Roman empire fled to Persia when their ruler tried to regulate religion, which led to all sort of abominations like algebra and medicine.

Regulation, while starting off as well meaning, generally ends up pissing off more people than it helps.

Fast forward to a time a little more recent, but probably still distant history to most of you, and you may discover that the savings and loan crisis and quantitative easing were, in part, catalysts for the Great Recession, all of which can be trace back to more regulating regulations in the name of social justice

So if you really think regulation and some fanboy cryptocurrency of the month is going to save the economy, or the world, then don't be surprised to meet me while I'm looting the wood from the walls of your house to heat mine, when the economy falls flat on it's face and the empire is overrun by barbarian hoards.

Let the banks assess risk as they see fit. If they don't want to lend you money for some purchase, then get your money some other way, plain and simple. You are even welcome to come try and take my money. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.

The best antidote to banks controlling a cashless future is government regulation. Somebody has to be in charge of the money supply or it'll become unstable and wreck the economy. But giving somebody that power inevitably results in a strong concentrations of power. The only effective counter balance to that is Democracy. This is one of the reasons the left has been pushing for mandatory (and anonymous) voting. It really is a civic duty at that point.

Since the Ukrainian vote to join the EU, Russia has gone on an all-out propaganda offensive with the intention to split the west and weaken NATO. Russia regards the Ukraine as its "home-turf" and buffer against perceived NATO "aggression", and it regards the EU as the gateway to NATO membership for eastern European countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union.
Russia feels as if NATO is encroaching on its sphere of influence and waging an "underhanded" war of political expansion. Looking at a map you will see how one by one, former Soviet republics have been converted into NATO countries.
Russia also feels that this NATO expansion is a violation of a promise made to Gorbachev at the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that NATO would not expand to the east.
For this reasons Russia has decided to go on the offensive and start fighting NATO. Not by military means, since it does not have the means to seriously compete with NATO, but by information warfare, taking full advantage of the traits of our open societies, such as freedom of speech and of the press. Using fake news and trolls that sow discontent and dissent, it intends to cause a rift between our countries and institutions.
Russian agents already provided plenty of cannon fodder to the Brexit crew and succeeded in swaying public opinion. Everything that causes a rift through the EU and NATO is good for Russia.
Russia is very active in spreading fake news and inciting discontent around far-right groups in Europe, using the refugee crisis to full effect (fake news about rapists, terrorists and other criminals among refugees) to strengthen the far-right and to politically destabilize European nations, especially Germany and France. Fortunately these activities have only had marginal success thus far, with the far-right Front National in France and the AfD in Germany gaining some votes, but not enough to pose a serious threat to the political establishment.
It had resounding success in the U.S. were it just so managed to tip the scale in favor of Trump, the weaker candidate, and the US government and especially foreign policy is practically paralyzed and ineffectual at the moment. If you want some information or evidence on these activities, it's really only a good google search away.
Russian activities in Germany and Europe:
https://www.nato.int/docu/Revi...
http://time.com/4889471/german...
https://www.politico.eu/articl...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

On Russia's overall strategy and interference in the US:
https://www.newyorker.com/maga...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...

That should be a good start to get an idea.

According to this article: http://time.com/4286575/sexual... The phrase âoesexual harassmentâ was coined in 1975, by a group of women at Cornell University.