Slashdot Mirror

Not to mention 7% more African American votes and 8% more hispanic American votes. It was the decided rise of the "minorities" (women, blacks, hispanics) that elected Trump - yes, the "racist/misogynist" was put into office by a marked increase of votes by the minorities he supposedly hates.

The coal business is dying from natural causes in the USA, and I don't think there's anything Trump can possibly do to turn that around

Natural causes ?

Well if you call EPA regulations meant to kill coal https://www.washingtonpost.com... natural causes sure.

Doesn't mean the Russians aren't involved. There are reports of a whole town in Macedonia alleged to be under the direction of Russian intelligence hosting up to 100 fake news sites and reaping lots from ad clicks. Check out https://www.washingtonpost.com... It's silly to assume that because one person pushing fake news has been identified that there aren't lots of others doing it. This is apparently a growth business preying on the gullible, who seem predominantly to be conservatives. Are you silly? As far are your claim about David Brock, can you cite a source that can be independently verified as I have done with my reports? Or is yours just another piece of fake news?

Yes -- this story and interview is quite similar to a Washington Post story from last week, when they interviewed a much more prominent creator of fake news, who also is a liberal and apparently followed the same "script."

The left wing outrage machinery is largely fed by self-created fake stories.

"Largely"? I don't think so. Partly, sure. I think there were more right-wing propagandists creating fake news than there were liberals floating hoaxes to later bash them. More importantly, I think the opportunists who realized creating sensationalist news was a money-maker outnumbered all of them. I don't think these opportunists skew left-wing or right-wing or toward Balkan teenagers or whatever... they're just a bunch of random people making money off of crap.

And to add to the money side, there's banking, human resources (many farms use hired hands), filing and redeeming crop insurance...

The parent post best describes what farms currently are. My mom and dad can both talk about what it used to be like growing up on a farm; waking up at 5am, feeding livestock, cleaning pens, milking cows, their dads fixing the tractor and equipment, tilling, plowing, seeding, fertilizing, spraying, harvesting...and lots and lots of praying for good weather and a good harvest. But most of all, it was always a roller-coaster ride of two or three really good years, maybe including a boom year, followed by some break-even years, maybe including a few bust years, with never a guarantee that any year could make them money.

Those "family farm" days are disappearing. Farm sizes are growing, and the number of farmers are shrinking. But that's not to say that families still don't own their farms. Crops aren't rotated nearly as frequently. Livestock aren't kept on the side and graze the fields. Machines and automation have evolved, and farms now focus on one or two crops (or livestock) with greater efficiency. Farms have changed from labor-intensive diversified endeavors to an efficient, business-intensive farm.

My grandpa managed a 120-acre farm. Farmers around where I live talk about how they manage their 1,000+ acre farms. Automated machinery will just make these farms grow even larger and make it easier for farmers to own and farm more land.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people are in denial about Russia's involvement in attacking our electoral process.

Sure, you can find Macedonian teenagers, and idiots in California who claim that "only conservatives fall for fake news" and that it "doesn't work with liberals" (...) but that's a side show.

Start here, and read it until you grasp what is going on:

Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say

The flood of "fake news" this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human "trolls," and networks of websites and social-media accounts echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on "fake news," as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

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

Then continue here:

A collection of articles on Russia influence operations in the United States:

The threat from Russia
22 Oct 2016

How to contain Vladimir Putins deadly, dysfunctional empire

FOUR years ago Mitt Romney, then a Republican candidate, said that Russia was Americas number-one geopolitical foe. Barack Obama, among others, mocked this hilarious gaffe: The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the cold wars been over for 20 years, scoffed the president. How times change. With Russia hacking the American election, presiding over mass slaughter in Syria, annexing Crimea and talking casually about using nuclear weapons, Mr Romneys view has become conventional wisdom. Almost the only American to dissent from it is todays Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

http://www.economist.com/news/...

---

Belching smoke through the Channel, Russian aircraft carrier so unreliable it sails with its own breakdown tug
22 Oct 2016

The ageing Russian aircraft carrier that sailed through the English Channel escorted by the Royal Navy has been plagued by years of technical problems and is accompanied everywhere by a tug in case it breaks down.

The plumbing is so bad on the 55,000 ton Admiral Kuznetsov that many of its toilets cannot be used, while it has had repeated problems with its power and a string of accidents, naval experts said.

The Soviet-era warship is leading a flotilla of eight naval vessels to the eastern Mediterranean, where its aircraft are expected to join a renewed assault on the rebel-held city of Aleppo.

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

---

Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking
21 Oct 2016

Donald Trump

Spirit cooking debunked. Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference to someone living in the loonyverse.

I like that "post-truth" is word of the year.

Nope.

I don't know what you're running, but it most definitely isn't a newspaper.

Firstly, this is an advisor making suggestions to Trump, not Trump himself.

Secondly, the person making the suggestion is an outside advisor, not a member of the transition team.

Thirdly, the recommendation is to let NASA deal with space-going issues and have other parts of government do climate research. It's not advocating just dumping the research.

And finally, other members of the government have suggested this move in the past, including Ted Cruz.

(source)

Trump has not said or done anything on this yet, he's only vaguely and tangentially involved, and it's not even clear that the adviser has even made his case to Trump yet.

It took me all of 1 minute to dig down and find the actual story, and summarize it truthfully. I've done what any good editor should do, and what you didn't do. Report fairly and accurately.

And yet you want to put 4 inch headlines saying how insane he is. Oh, excuse me, that was in jest. You want to say he is a buffoon.

You think you're a newspaper, but you're one of the "fake news" problems we keep hearing about.

Let me be specific: You are in no way running an actual newspaper, you're simply a troll publication like National Enquirer.

(I expect you'll next be telling me "Bat Boy Lives!!!")

Not that scrapping all NASA climate research will do the alt-rigth a damn bit of good. ESA will continue this kind of research and even if the alt-right in the form of AfD, Front National and friends take over Europe and scrap any climate related ESA research there will still be a legion of independent university researchers funded by private grants continuing such research. The alt-right will have to declare an all out war on climate science and ban such research by law on an international level to stop the flow of any data that might be inconvenient to their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry.

Hey, go for it!

In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:

"TRUMP IS INSANE"

Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.

What we do run is a newspaper in a part of the world that is already feeling the effects of climate change, with direct and tangible economic and social impacts. So when a top climate denier says that he intends to cut the legs out from under an integral part of the climate science community, and claims to be acting to stop political interference with climate science.... That gets a big headline. We're running it tomorrow.

And yes, editors do sometimes talk like that. In jest, but mostly because if you can't maintain your gallows humour, you won't be an editor for long.

Hey, go for it!

In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:

"TRUMP IS INSANE"

Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.

What we do run is a newspaper

...

Nope.

I don't know what you're running, but it most definitely isn't a newspaper.

Firstly, this is an advisor making suggestions to Trump, not Trump himself.

Secondly, the person making the suggestion is an outside advisor, not a member of the transition team.

Thirdly, the recommendation is to let NASA deal with space-going issues and have other parts of government do climate research. It's not advocating just dumping the research.

And finally, other members of the government have suggested this move in the past, including Ted Cruz.

(source)

Trump has not said or done anything on this yet, he's only vaguely and tangentially involved, and it's not even clear that the adviser has even made his case to Trump yet.

It took me all of 1 minute to dig down and find the actual story, and summarize it truthfully. I've done what any good editor should do, and what you didn't do. Report fairly and accurately.

And yet you want to put 4 inch headlines saying how insane he is. Oh, excuse me, that was in jest. You want to say he is a buffoon.

You think you're a newspaper, but you're one of the "fake news" problems we keep hearing about.

Let me be specific: You are in no way running an actual newspaper, you're simply a troll publication like National Enquirer.

(I expect you'll next be telling me "Bat Boy Lives!!!")

THERE. ARE. TO. MANY. PEOPLE. Reality check- EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. This train aint gonna slow.

I agree that we need to get off this planet sooner rather than later, but the whole overpopulation thing is a myth that's been debunked for some time: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I saw an article yesterday that breaks down the vote in an interesting way. It turns out that Clinton carried almost every county with a large economy. When you associated GDP with the counties where it originates, the counties that Clinton won account for about two-third of the economic activity in the country.

In many respects, that makes sense, Trump's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric would resonate most with people who have not had a great 8 years under Obama, and least with those who have.

• Let's assume the KKK-types aren't important
• List infrastructure stuff Obama tried to fix for the last 6 years but the Republicans stopped him.
• List a bunch of KKK-types, where they hang out online, and their issues

C'mon! What's your next comedy prediction?

Trump Foundation admits to self-dealing (i.e. fraud).
Trump University settles fraud lawsuit for more than half of initial amount.
DJT Promotes business interests in political meeting.

Remember when Ivaka got up and gave a speech to the RNC that sounded like something Bernie wrote? And they clapped.

Wow, great response. Maybe your next one will be based on our world. That world being the one I personally remember happening while I was in the military with Clinton as my Commander in Chief.

Here are few examples of how Clinton's scandals were thought of back then:
http://articles.latimes.com/19...

If disgust with the current crisis depresses women's votes in November, we will see an anti-women's rights majority in Congress roll back the gains for women of the past 30 years," said a joint statement released Thursday by 15 feminist and civil rights organizations.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01...

The initial public reaction of feminists and other women's advocates to President Clinton's latest trouble can most charitably be described as restrained. They have a problem:

How do you defend a man whose relations with individual women, at least in some cases, are widely believed to have been irresponsible, disrespectful, exploitive and profoundly destructive?

And yet how do you attack a President with the best record ever on issues related to women?

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

Throughout Clinton's dealing with the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones and more recently with allegations that he had sex with Lewinsky, a former White House intern, women generally have supported him, and leaders of liberal women's groups have remained neutral on, if not sympathetic to, his plight.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) complained yesterday about what has been "the deafening silence" of women's organizations after their criticism of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and then-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) in recent years.

With the various issues those articles bring up, the recurring theme is what I pointed out: the feminists are happy supporting a sexual predator and accused rapist, as long as he supports abortion.

I have to wonder where you get your news. Name ANY conservative leader and I'll give you some links of them addressing exactly those issues. The leading Republican right now is the guy who was unanimously voted Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. He said, very clearly, that fixing Medicare is a top priority for the new Congress. The headlines of left-leaning publications currently are things like "Paul Ryan to dismantle Medicare". The LA Times just had that headline, for example. This Washington Post article is a tad more factual.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I don't know where you've been getting your information, but obviously not from any of the major media. Chris Christie's speeches about Social Security are legendary. So anyway go ahead and name ANY conservative leader and I'll show you video of them covering those topics or specific policy proposals to address them.

It is a well known fact that reality has a strong liberal bias.

What insufferable arrogance.

Then get your fellow conservatives to stop lying their assess off.

I'm sorry but if I were a Conservative with intellectual integrity I'd be absolutely ashamed of the state of my movement and wouldn't have the first idea where to go.

Did you not watch the party that represents your movement first spend years falling head over heels with an obviously incompetent Sarah Palin, only to eventually go all in behind a man so lied so shamelessly that I can't even think of a comparable individual and with only a vague idea of what a President actually does?

Did you not see The Volokh Conspiracy, a site so solidly right wing their favourite candidate was Ted "I'm going to threaten the country's solvency to launch my Presidential bid" Cruz, come out almost uniformly against Trump.

Did you not watch virtually every respected intellectual within the Republican party either oppose Trump, or only back him with extreme reluctance?

Were you paying attention when your base was taken over by ridiculous birther conspiracies and freakouts that the federal government was about to invade Texas?!?

This is not "there's two sides to every story", or "well Liberals are just as bad". Stupid Liberal conspiracies happen too, but they're the exception, not the rule. They don't end up dominating the entire movement.

There is a valid role for conservatism to play in the public discourse, so toss out the damn clowns and hucksters and start playing it!!

I'll just leave this here.

Someone dropped a YUUUGE!!!! house on her two weeks ago!

There's no need to burn her - she's already DEAD! (along with the bulk of the Democratic Party - and that's pre-Trump. Thanks Obama!)

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

Wake up you sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!

Need some salve for that butt-hurt?!?!!

BWAAA AHAAA HAAA A

Didn't get the change you were hoping for 8 years ago, now did you?

You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.

Ah, straw man argument. I'm on the same page now.

Look, your argument is shit because you're not doing a thing to enable employers to pay a living wage. Cart before the horse. We're going to force employers to pay much high salaries and they'll do it because they were holding back somehow. The economy is what creates the jobs not vice versa. Demand driven model is convenient fantasy.

Another objective reality is that where the minimum wage has been increased, the economy has done better and jobs did NOT go away. The people with those jobs did become less dependent on the safety net and generally better off. Just google for any place you made gloom and doom predictions about last year for the data.

Two things to note. First, there's an awful lot of permanent unemployment for an economy where the jobs didn't go away. Second, weren't you just complaining about the absence of better paying jobs? That's a consequence right there.

Finally, job loss isn't the only negative consequence of universal minimum wage laws. They also force people to work in higher cost of living areas. For example, Puerto Rico has been devastated by the imposition of the standard US minimum wage laws. The story notes a lot of low end manufacturing just disappeared (but WE DIDN'T WANT THOSE JOBS ANYWAY) and a huge number of people migrated to mainland US (with of course, higher cost of living). But economically, it looks great. The US is still chugging along and those people are still employed.

Funny, I don't recall the Democratic president ever allowing them to work with him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Over and over again, we heard that Obama would not negotiate with the Republicans. Obama was of the opinion that either they allow him to do everything he wants, or he will take his ball and go home. It is impossible to work with someone who won't even talk to you about what they want without throwing a hissy fit.

except that the FCC's attempts at regulating the internet have never actually taken effect. Then it gets better.

You didn't seem to include sufficient explanation of how that statement conflicts with, e.g.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/12/net-neutrality-takes-effect-today-heres-how-it-affects-you/

*Heil

I'm trying to give our friends on the alt-Right the benefit of the doubt. The nazi salutes kind of give it away, though.

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

It's the same way Democrats have been promising illegal aliens that they'll take care of them and protect them from evil Republicans and make the citizens while at the same time Obama has ramped up deportations to the point that he's sent more home than Bush and Clinton combined.

The deportation figures are misleading and are actually down if using the previous administrations metrics. Basically inflated numbers provided by people blocked at the border are up vs those removed in country are down. Here's an obfuscated article on it.

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

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

Is this the impression you are left with when watching the news?

Necessary indeed! This is a matter of extreme importance to the future leader of the free world.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/express/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GettyImages-622407668.gif

Seriously? Do you not know how to use google?

First link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Worst one, in my opinion, when the black & latino *teenagers* got accused of killing a white girl & trump took out a full page ad saying bring back the death penalty. When they were exonerated by actual DNA evidence & compensated for being wrongly convicted, Trump thought it was a "disgrace"

Or just go read his Twitter account. It's full of him hating brown people.

(3) To quote from this WPo article:

Speaking to Bloomberg News, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said staffers at the Russian Embassy in Washington met with members of Trump's campaign - meetings she described as "normal practice." Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign refused similar requests for meetings, Zakharova told the agency.

(8) I guess this Australian News service is Breitbart's left counter-part down under?

Sorry buddy, this rumor can't be knocked down that easily, it just fits the facts way too frighteningly well.

That he made Flynn national security adviser is just icing on the cake. That guy celebrated Russia's propaganda channel RT with Putin in attendance,

(3) To quote from this WPo article:

Speaking to Bloomberg News, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said staffers at the Russian Embassy in Washington met with members of Trump's campaign - meetings she described as "normal practice." Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign refused similar requests for meetings, Zakharova told the agency.

(8) I guess this Australian News service is Breitbart's left counter-part down under?

Sorry buddy, this rumor can't be knocked down that easily, it just fits the facts way too frighteningly well.

That he made Flynn national security adviser is just icing on the cake. That guy celebrated Russia's propaganda channel RT with Putin in attendance,

Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.

I read an interview this morning with a guy who runs of the "fake news" sites. He would refer to what he does as parody or satire, but other people don't see it that way. For example, he wrote a story that someone who was protesting a Donald Trump rally in Arizona was paid $3500 to protest. He thought that was satire. But it was picked up by ABC and tweeted out by Trump's campaign manager as if it were true. He thought that they would fact check and find out that it was fake, but no one ever did. He mentioned how he makes $10k per month from ad revenue, and it's because people share his stories that fit a conservative Trump supporter narrative without ever bothering to fact check anything (or even think critically about whether something is believable - like the "Amish lobby" that was claiming that all Amish people were going to vote for Trump). People eat it up, don't question it, and if it ever does get questioned people have moved on and don't pay attention to the correction, they just assumed it was true and move on.

Here's the interview if you're curious.

Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke ... in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.

Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.

That "bias" that you're referring to is a product of the free market. If conservatives seem to be more gullible, then you write things targeting them. It's not "bias" so much as knowing your audience.

Why would we want to maximize tax revenue for one of the most inefficient organizations in the US...the federal government? So they can waste more? Give any federal agency more money, and they'll spend it weather they need it or now...that's how it's done. You see it at the end of every fiscal year. They blow whatever remaining budget they have just so they can tell Congress that they needed it. And on top of that, you'll just be adding to congressional pork programs.

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

I still can't understand how environmentalists could be opposed to [nuclear power], if they truly believe what scientists are telling us about what's happening with AGW and what the long term effects may be.

Actually, environmentalists are on board when it comes to nuclear power, for the very reasons you mentioned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/en...

Good job, France. I wish we'd do the same in the USA. With Trump it might happen.

Trump is committed to "clean coal" (sic) and getting all those Kentucky coal miners their jobs and black lung back. So nah, probably not replacing coal with nuclear.

On the other hand, Trump has already started racking up the imaginary successes:

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

Gaslighter-in-Chief.

Just in case other people haven't done this:

Here's the Washington Post article which talks about the interview:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And here's the actual, AUDIO of the interview so you can hear him in literally his own words saying this:
https://soundcloud.com/breitba...

Next time you're "genuinely curious" about something, do bother to read the article carefully. See the underlined words? They indicate "links" which is a way of connecting web pages together. If you clicked on the VERY FIRST link marked "an interview", you'd have come to the actual interview.

Of course, before I call someone a racist against Asians (I had heard he was a racist against other minorities from other comments) I wanted proof. So, before I settled that opinion to my own satisfaction, I CHECKED by reading the article and following the links to the ACTUAL FACTS. So now I know, Brannon's an equal opportunity racist (or I guess white nationalist). Now that I think of it, you're probably one too and just trolling by pretending to be "generally curious"

Godwin's rule. You lose.

Didn't you hear? Under a Trumpster America, Godwin's law has been offically suspended.

Trump can simply build a wall around China.

If Trump really believes climate change isn't real, then why is he building walls around his golf courses? (to be correct, he wants it around Ireland).

He should put his money where his mouth is and not do it. Hell, Ireland should say since it's not real, he doesn't need the wall. It's either real, and it's in his economic best interest to protect his properties, or it's not real as he claims, in which case he doesn't need the walls.

It was trending because of people discussing and denouncing it, not because people were supporting it.

BLM isn't racist.

If "White Lives Matter" is racist, then so is "Black Lives Matter". This is an inescapable conclusion, however you may try to rationalize it.

But I included several other examples of non-White racism, which remains alive and well on Twitter. AmiMojo suggested above, that that is simply because no one has filed a formal complaint against these other racists — the notion I ridicule in this subthread.

But I get it, you simply think crackas are all inherently racist, while no coloreds ever could be.

Has anyone been threatened or harassed directly by those accounts, and did they complain?

Raising the bar, aren't you? Do you sincerely doubt, Twitter would've waited for someone to file a formal complaint before permanently banning anyone calling for murder of the President-elect Clinton?

Do you know, who filed such a complaint against Milo, when the "dangerous faggot" was banned by Twitter?

Dual standard much?

1. "The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition." Oops, fail right there.

1. Tradition: Make america great AGAIN. Bring jobs BACK to America. It's constant harking back to the way things were, i.e tradition.

2. Rejection of modernism: Trump said that "a lot of modern art is a con."

3. Action for action's sake: He declared that Hillary was unfit for president because sometimes she took a day or two off from campaign events. Sounds like a proponent of action for it's own sake to me.

4. Disagreement is treason: he's repeatedly called the press "corrupt". And, uh, https://www.washingtonpost.com...

5. We agree.

6. it's the pressure of the elites, not lower social groups, which are the problem - regardless, he's appealing to the frustrated middle.

7. We agree.

8. "The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies." - except that all the criticism of Hillary has been about wealth and ties to big business. The rich elite. Eco explicitly points out that this will have inherent contradictions. The original fascism was funded but the rich elite too.

9. I'll leave this quote from someone else: Trump is someone who will go to war against a former beauty queen on Twitter at 3 AM. He's always fighting someone. His advisors and surrogates also live in a constant state of war - from ideological scrapper Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart boss who Trump just picked as chief White House chief strategist, to spokeswoman KatrinaPierson, known to wear a literal necklace of bullets during her media appearances.Meanwhile, Trump's alt-right fans - particularly those who learned virtually everything they know about politics from 4chan and Gamergate - are happy to serve tirelessly in Trump's unofficial meme army.

10. We agree

11. Remember the talk of what happened if he didn't win, and Trump supporters claiming they were arming themselves etc?

12. Yes he hasn't gone on, but machismo is a big part of the Trump campaign/appeal.

13. Read the whole thing: Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. That's pretty much straight from the Trump playbook. The press is Corrupt. The election is Rigged, etc etc.

14. They have a their own weird lingo. http://www.attn.com/stories/67...

sad.

Looks like 5 out of 14, even accepting Eco as the expert.

I disagree. I think it's more like 14 out of 14.

Even the NYT has admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their coverage, to the point that LIBERALS were getting sick of it.

Actually, that statement is itself based around fake news. Funny, that.

I know it's typical to compare to the previous year, but shouldn't they have compared to the previous election year in this case?

He'll need someone to read the words of the letter to him because he must be illiterate. That was the premise of your joke, right?

No. By his own admission, The Donald doesn't like to read.

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

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

"I'm saying that if Democrats want to be successful it would certainly help if they can find people to run that weren't accused of committing multiple felonies"

Can you explain why that standard should be applied only to Democrats?

Chris Christie, Scott Walker & Rick Perry have more than a few legal woes

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

And the President-elect is now begging off his own upcoming court appearance regarding Trump University - a case that's been ongoing for over 5 years.

Even the NYT has admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their coverage, to the point that LIBERALS were getting sick of it.

Actually, that statement is itself based around fake news. Funny, that.

And also to keep tabs on love interests, done commonly enough to garner its own official designation.

It's not an official designation, it's a JOKE. Like RUMINT, or WORMINT, or KITTYINT, or LUNCHINT...

Do you know what the NSA calls someone that uses their systems to spy on family? A felon.

99% of them are people who try to use the excessive access they've been given to protect their country, which includes their families

And also to keep tabs on love interests, done commonly enough to garner its own official designation.

Here's Glenn Greenwald's editorial on it. Dems were OK with surveillance and unchecked government power starting the day Obama was nominated.

You say "typical liberal" as if that's a genuine belief system and not just a storytelling style designed to persuade a specific subculture.

The debate on abortion in the US is legally messy. There's one faction that campaigns for abortion on demand without restriction, one side that campaigns for a total ban with maybe the narrowist exception to save life.

You are correct that it is messy, but any legal mess arises out of the real issue. Your portrayal of the first faction is actually a deceit, as it is not the real position of the pro-choice, but a deceitful picture created by the other, anti-abortion faction that wants to be able to scream that pro-choice means ripping babies from the womb and murdering them. That is what Trump did during the debate.

That story is a concocted lie. That is something you left out.

I could further describe the anti-abortion group, as there have been other issues, but that alone is enough for me, and I'm more bothered by your misrepresentation of the pro-choice position.

The majority of people don't actually support either position, but because of the importance of the Roe case it's not possible to campaign for a compromise: The pro-choice faction needs to defend Roe at all costs, and they know that if they lose it the pro-life faction will sieze the chance to rush straight to the opposite extreme in many states. There is no possibility for anything in between.

You somewhat have the outcome right, but you are off in the premises. The pro-choice faction needs to be careful because of that extremism by the anti-abortion faction, which means every act of theirs has to be watched for the hook. They're far too inclined to duplicty and subterfuge, as demonstrated by their TRAP laws.

Trump's ignorance about tech and telecom policy was on full display throughout the election season.

I guess this is supposed to be weighed against Clinton's tech acumen - "Like with a cloth?"

Clinton did not know how to use a desktop computer