Slashdot Mirror

Much of the opposition came from Democrats, though the vote did produce a striking coalition of conservatives and liberals who backed an alternative that would have imposed stricter protections for Americans whose information got snared in the data dragnet. https://m.washingtontimes.com/...

Now if Trump attempts to use the official powers of his office (not just his status)

Henry II: Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Trump: DO SOMETHING!

FYI, trump's twits are official statements from the office of the presidency not just his 'opinion.'

purchasing sex is illegal, as is pimping, but selling sex is perfectly illegal

As a solution to human trafficking this sounds like a good solution, except that it really isn't all that. This solution fits so very nicely with today's zeitgeist, and so we are rather invested in believing that it works.

Not to mention there's an important moral issue with this solution, in that it criminalizes a transaction - and one-sidedly at that - between what in a lot of cases are consenting adults. If 9 out of 10 women work in the industry against their will, that doesn't make it right to arrest the john who bought sex from the 1 willing lady. And in countries with legalized prostitution, the ratio is a lot lower than that. I'm not too impressed either with the number of women who, when asked, stated they wanted to leave the business. Over here they asked prostitutes if they'd rather earn their money some other way, and most of them said yes. But when asked if prostitution should be made illegal they almost all answered no, and a good many of them stated they were reasonably happy in their work.

Human trafficking will not stop regardless of what laws you have in place concerning prostitution, but legalizing prostitution does equally well when it comes to protecting the rights of women in the business.

No citation needed for that one though?

No because everyone has the countless cycle of Democrats claiming there is a Russia collusion on the news.

I have helpfully provided many links for you as you appear too be too stupid to have ever followed the news, or to use Google. You poor bastard. Can't keep helping you though so you are on your own from here.

Twitter admitted under oath that they tried to bury #DNCLeaks tweets calling attention to the fact that Hillary controlled the DNC and rigged the primary for herself.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

My point was all of a sudden Russia is implying that we are or we intend on messing with their elections. Yet they have no evidence of this but there is some evidence that they were influencing ours and tons of evidence that they are manipulating their own.

There is evidence in both cases, just not in the way you think. Every country screws with other countries. Hell the US was interfering in Canadian elections. Environmental groups in Canada were getting back-channel funds through US environmental groups who'd been sucking off the tit of the CFPB. Think there's a reason that even after the previous government left power that the CRA(akin to the IRS) is still investigating this? There's also serious problems in CFPB land with the person who was overseeing it funneling money.

So now they are gaslighting and acting like they are the victim.

Nearly every country is. Both Russia(and the former USSR), and the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, NZ, and so on have all done this to some degree or another. I mean come on, we've even got the cold hard truth on this one. The Obama admin directly interfered in an Israeli election. We can go back even further to the collapse of the USSR if you want, and you'll easily find how Bill Clinton's government directly interfered in everything from politics to banking.

President Clinton interfered with Yeltsin's 1996 re-election, and of course President Obama directly funded the campaign to try to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yeah, we do interfere in other elections...

Sorry, but in sum it appears to be true, ... at least under the immigration policies of the recent past.

Mass immigration costs government $296 billion a year, depresses wages

The report also concludes that new arrivals aren’t assimilating as well as past waves of immigrants. They struggle to learn English and to increase their wages at the rates of immigrants just a few decades ago.

Written in heavily caveated academic language, the report tested a number of models of economic and fiscal policy based on different assumptions about immigration. That meant the scholars came up with ranges of outcomes rather than firm answers.

But those ranges were sometimes conclusive, particularly when it came to government finances. The researchers tested eight scenarios, and in each of them taxpayers came out worse.

The best-case scenario put the federal government ahead but states behind, for a total loss of $43 billion in 2013. The worst-case scenario showed federal, state and local governments losing $296 billion in 2013. That would be equivalent to about 4 percent of total government spending that year

Maybe it will change in the future with policy changes and a border wall.

Are you referring to the birther stuff Hillary's man put out there in the first place? https://www.washingtontimes.co...

It's not Russia, but would 2015 and Israel, does that count?

If $125k worth of ads on FaceBook really had such a massive impact (and please cite any reputable source that shows facts on that happening), then perhaps it is time to introduce an idiocy test before being allowed to vote. If you get all your news from FaceBook or spend more than 15 hours a week on FaceBook/SnapChat/Twitter then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Or if you can't spot at least 50% of which articles are fake in a pool of say 12 articles then you don't get to vote.

Or better yet, if your annual tax filings are 0 or negative (yes some people get more money back than they pay in) then perhaps you also shouldn't be allowed to vote since you have no actual skin in the game. As soon as the tipping point is reached (which isn't too far away) that more than 50% of the voters are those who always vote a socialist agenda to take away from one group to give to another, then the nation is headed for collapse. As Margaret Thatcher put it:

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS TRADITIONALLY DO MAKE A FINANCIAL MESS. THEY ALWAYS RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

And you get socialist governments by having an il-informed electorate who are easily manipulated into voting one in by constantly saying things like "how is the government going to pay for that tax cut?" - how about maybe STOP SPENDING SO MUCH? - or "that will only benefit the rich". Of course it benefits the rich because 45% of Americans pay no federal income tax so a cut from 0 is 0.

In contrast however the other half pay 97.3% of all taxes with the top 5% of earners carrying a whopping 59.97% of the tax burden but only controlling 35% of the income. So of course a tax cut benefits the wealthy because they're the ones actually PAYING TAXES. But you ask any of these idiots who were supposedly swayed by Russian ads about these facts and they'll spew the Democrat/US Media propaganda about how the rich "don't pay their fair share". I haven't heard that those lies were part of any Russian ads, so who really is interfering in US elections by spreading fake ads and news stories?

Hell, if that minuscule amount of spending by the evil Russians had such a great impact that it overpowered almost a billion dollars in spending and full cooperation from 90% of all media outlets, then the Russians should start a 5th Avenue Advertising firm and they'd end up controlling the entire world without firing a shot. After all their mere $120k+ investment apparently completely changed the outcome of an election in the United States whereas Obama's $350k interference had no impact on the Israeli election.

Maybe that is why there is so much supposed anger over the Russians involvement because they apparently showed how incompetent Obama was (again) by spending less than half what he did.

Looks like Germany is the counry in the world that has reduced its CO2 output the most ...

No, pretty sure that the USA is #1 on this.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...

It took me about two minutes to find that image. If you want to make a claim on something you might want to take the time to check that it's true. Perhaps more recent data will show Germany leading, if that data exists then I'd like to see it.

This Russian-Hacked-Our-Election is a an actual Conspiracy Theory being pushed by the establishment/media.So do you believe it? If so, you belive in conspiracy theories. ;)

But you posted, so that opens up another option, as in you're obviously willing to have a discussion, so here I'll provide a few links. The more people that can actually look past this mainstream media-conspiracy about a Russian-hack, the better:

The DNC server is the source of this Russian hack conspiracy that's being shoved down our throats. So if this is true, you'd think our government would have looked at it right? They haven't:
Pick through the links, they're abundant and verifiable -- even Donna B. commented on it when she somewhat betrayed the DNC-cult after releasing her book:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNC+...

We only have the word of Crowd Strike that maybe the DNC server was hacked. It's a belief, not a fact. So as mentioned, no one in our government has looked at it. Why is this?
http://investmentwatchblog.com...

https://www.washingtontimes.co...

I've been paying attention to what's going on, so it's hard to buy into any of this Russia-lie. And I like occasional CAPS, so suck it. Yelling is every single word in caps. :)

Arguably an omnipotent God wouldn't give people the choice about whether they get free will, or in general freedom because they might make the wrong choice.

E.g. look at all the millennials who want to live under 'communism, socialism or fascism'.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...

Though admittedly if you look at the report it's not as bad as the Washington Times makes out

https://victimsofcommunism.org...

https://imgur.com/a/3LQU6

I'd interpret that as most Americans want a free market system, voting for Capitalism over Socialism 59% to 34%.

Millennials have no money/lots of student debt and 44% want a Scandinavian social democratic system where they'd get free stuff as opposed to 42% who want capitalism (what they think they have). Support for radically anti freedom systems like Communism and Fascism is pretty low - 7% each even among Millennials. And if you look the rest of the report, that's because Millennials mostly can't identify Communism, Socialism, Fascism and Capitalism from the definition.

So they're young, ignorant and have been brainwashed at college. I went through that stage - I voted Labour in my 20s, albeit only when it was led by the centrist Tony Blair. It was only after I worked in Sweden that I realized that Scandinavian social democracy is no utopia.

Then you are a fool. As a canadian, I've been in physical encounters with people where they have drawn weapons. If I or they had a gun instead of a knife, things would have ended much worse for someone.

Okay, here's a thought experiment for you. What if we took an area where it was not generally legal to carry a pistol, and changed the laws so that it became generally legal to carry a pistol? Would violence go up, go down, stay the same? By your argument, it should go up.

Well, the experiment has been tried, and violence was observed to go down.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/

Does this prove that legalizing concealed carry causes violent crime rates to drop? No, because correlation does not prove causation. However, if your argument were valid, concealed carry would cause an increase in violence, and this data clearly contradicts this proposition.

So, you were rude to me, and you offered your own opinion as if it were fact, and the facts don't agree with your opinion.

Most guns used in crimes are smuggled from the USA at extreme risk.

It's not legal to possess crack cocaine anywhere in the USA. Yet crack addicts buy it everywhere all the time. So I'm not sure what your point is... if your argument is that the laws in Canada keep criminals from getting firearms, could you please explain how the crack addicts get crack?

For that matter, since it's against the law to commit murder, why do murders still occur?

The laws shape the culture.

That's an interesting idea but I notice you didn't support it with any kind of references or statistics or anything. I'll grant that laws can exert some kind of influence on culture but I reject the idea that government has the power to directly shape culture, that if it could just pass the right laws human nature could change. I disagree with you on this point, but I won't insult you.

Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.

Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year. I read numerous articles talking about congresses' dissatisfaction to Obama committing the US to the accord without their consent. They were even looking for a way to defund the program.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...?

In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund. The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.

Some even considered the fund to be a massive wealth distribution program coming at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.

There was already tension before, and Obama didn't help on this front
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Without even counting the segregation time in the 60s-70s

The media and the Democrats are basically the same thing.

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

A mere 7 percent of journalists identify as Republicans, and when they do give money to political campaigns they usually donate to Democrats, lending evidence to Republican presidential candidatesâ(TM) claims that they are facing a hostile audience when they deal with the press.

As Republican candidates prepare for their fourth debate of the primary season Tuesday in Milwaukee, the people doing the questioning are increasingly in the spotlight, with their motives being questioned by the campaigns, voters and even by their fellow journalists.

And self-proclaimed Democratic journalists outnumber Republicans by 4-to-1, according to research by Lars Willnat and David Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University. They found 28 percent of journalists call themselves Democrats, while just 7 percent call themselves Republicans - though both numbers are down from the 1970s. Those identifying as independent have grown.

Among Washington correspondents, the ones who dominate national political coverage, itâ(TM)s even more skewed, said Tim Groseclose, author of âoeLeft Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.â More than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote Democratic, with an even higher number giving to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees, the author said.

The Democrat's weird identity politics agenda - i.e. that white people voted against them and caused Trump but this is fine because in the long run white people will be a minority makes them worse than the Republicans to be honest.

Same with the gun grabbing, support for BLM, tacit support for AntiFa until that became untenable. Or the way Democrats in the media conflate Trump supporters, Republicans, conservatives with Nazis and then run articles saying it's OK to punch Nazis.

Or the way they cheer on the silencing of conservative voices on campus, or the firing of people like Brendan Eich, or censoring any dissenting voices off social media. Or attacks on peaceful assembly of dissenting voices.

The Republicans are corrupt and incompetent, but the Democrats are pure evil.

"At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding"

You anti-Trumpers are really hanging onto this one. A mere days after a guy shoots up Las Vegas authorities announce no ISIS ties to the gunman.

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

Yet a year into this Russia!, Russia!, Russia! investigation has produced nothing showing improper collusion with the Trump campaign and Russian authorities or agents.

How much time and how many millions of dollars are you willing to throw into the toilet trying to find something - anything to pin on Trump?

Maybe it's time to just let the constitutionally elected president do his job.

Spying on everything you can possibly do with this chromebook, because Google is in the business of marketing your personal information to advertisers. This will probably better enable them to link your credit card to your devices to your viewing preferences, to your buys, to your everything.

Considering that Google is an anti-science SJW organization, I wouldn't be surprised if they disabled these devices for libertarians and right wingers.

However, this isn't just a left or right thing. If there is an upcoming election, you can count on this piece of ..... to be pushing Hillary Clinton ads, and suppressing Bernie content, yet again.

Google is an amoral company. Don't buy their products, or use their services. Block all their crooked websites, their performance-sapping ad campaigns, and their duplicitous products.

http://www.newsweek.com/assang...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.salon.com/2014/02/...

albeit, in the Donald Trump kind of touchy feely way with women. Kirk's onscreen, campy womanizing would incite screams of outrage if filmed today. Even Bill Clinton would blush when watching that.

Nah, actually he wouldn't. He'd be telling the women they're too old, and then ask for the lolita express for some underage action.

Well, are the Klingons the modern heavy metal African-American Klingons, or the original Hispanic ones?

Neither. They writers decided to double-down on stupid, and inject some type of hybrid of political-cancer-aids-retardeness into the klingons while screeching over identity politics. I wish I was kidding, but as an avid trekie the episodes were beyond terrible and I hope that these idiots have learned something from it. But considering the other BS that they've been trying to push, it'll probably take a few more years of crashing and burning before we get out of this rut.

Didn't the Obama administration do something similar to the Israelis?

How come I never heard any kind of investigation? And by the way, it was to the legitimate government of a sovereign state. An ally of ours if I may add.

Since when is disagreeing with someone the same thing as hating free speech?

Since the moment it becomes illegal to say certain things. Not only is your opponent wrong when he says it, he should be prosecuted for saying it. That's when.

> Everyone knows that Hilary was by far the better candidate and has a brilliant record of public administrator
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-...
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/837704382472933376
Public administration whereby she leaked like a sinking ship and was deeply compromised by other nations? You seem to be another person who missed that the Russia narrative was started by.... Russia. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

When Facebook was censoring posts, and taking down insane things under the pretext of "hate speech" you never heard a peep from the liberals.

Now there's a chance of a Russia connection so OMFG WE WANT ANSWERS!

Meanwhile, the NH has found that out-of-state voters probably tipped the state to Hillary away from Trump, and almost definitely stole the Senate seat.

(NH allows for same-day voter registration, and you don't need a NH license to vote - only a "promise" that you've moved to NH and that you're in the process of getting your license transferred. Using round numbers, of 6,000 non-resident voters who registered on the day of the election, 5,000 have not actually moved to NH 9 months later. MA and VT are predominately Democratic, but NH is a swing state and the senate race was particularly close: incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte lost to challenger Maggie Hassan (D). Hassan won by a razor-thin margin of 1,017 votes. if 59.2 percent of out-of-state voters voted democratic, then that senate seat was stolen by non-resident voters.)

(Also, the senate currently sits at 52-48 in favor of R, and there have been several razor-thin votes since the election. That one seat stolen illegally has had an amplified effect on federal policy.)

Trump uses Russian dressing on his salad and it's all Russia! Russia! Russia!, but mention voter fraud and it's "nothing to see here, move along".

Meanwhile in the US, the Federal Government was forcing banks to close/freeze accounts of some businesses. Ah, and the taxmen are empowered to confiscate personal accounts on mere suspicion of wrong-doing.

First off, the fascist alt-left with their sock puppet accounts are out in force today.

Regarding your statement, sorry, but that is a flat out lie. Obama's policies gave us 1% per year for 8 years. The growth rate right now is partially forward looking by businesses, who are expecting Obamacare to be repealed, taxes to be cut, regulations to be rolled back, and in part due to actual EOs that have been rescinded by Trump. Regulations can stifle business even worse than taxes, something Obama never understood. Businesses operate in part on what is, and in part on projections and expectations. Now that they don't have to worry about the EPA raping them unexpectedly, the EEOC making up BS claims on them, Obama pulling another regulation out of his ass that costs them 10% off the top, they are starting to ramp up.

This is exactly because of Trump, just like the massive reduction in illegal immigration (70%) even though there has been no walls built yet, just the fact that Trump will be enforcing our laws on immigration and will be building a wall has resulted in massive reductions in illegal immigration, though not much on the ground has actually changed yet. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

March with the racists/bigots, you must be a racist/bigot. You are literally proving that point by defending Robert Byrd, who I believe would have owned black slaves if slavery had not been outlawed.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. We already established you are a racist by MightyMartian's rules, you are just re-enforcing that you are one.

As for Sanger Story. Go ahead and keep defending the worst of the worst.
Sanger Quote for Planned Parenthood

We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.

This is the person you are literally defending. Congratulations on going there and cementing your position as a racist for everyone reading /.

I don't trust any scientists. I have a PhD in applied science, and am fully capable of reviewing the data myself, which I have been doing for over 20 years. I believe and trust hard facts, and have a very low opinion of climate "scientists" who have been shilling for grant money and wildly wrong for the last 20 plus years with their computer models and predictions, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... AGW "scientists" have been caught repeatedly faking numbers, http://www.washingtontimes.com... and even they will agree that the science is far from settled (the only people arguing that the science is settled and all scientists believe in AGW are Bill Nye and the idiot politicians and those who worship at their feet). Further, your assertion that being right that the temperature is going up somehow validates the AGW "scientists" is ludicrous. Is it rational, as the AGW "scientists" argue, to destroy our civilization, and kill millions of people (even unintentionally, they are still dead, and rolling back civilization in favor of nature always costs lives, just ask the 45 million Africans who have died of Malaria to "save the birds" after we stopped using DDT http://www.discoverthenetworks... http://www.who.int/malaria/med... )

If the global temperature will rise another 0.3C in the next 100 years before falling 2C in the following 500 years is it in any way rational to divert funds from the most efficient and economical solutions to problems like energy, transportation, heating and AC? I will answer for you: No, it is not. Is there any moral, legal or rational justification for redistributing by force natural resources or money to countries more affected by global warming if AGW is not real? No there is not. There are some very key results if AGW is real or not that come into play.

Scientific fact says CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution were measured between 250 and 550 PPM. Therefore, our measurements today do not indicate much, if any, change in CO2 concentrations globally. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that plant growth is limited primarily by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that is where all the CO2 has been going as we produce it. This theory has been thoroughly tested and proven scientifically (if you increase CO2 concentrations locally, keeping other factors constant, plant growth is more rapid, more dense and the overall carbon capture rate increases.) This is scientific fact, not pull it out of your ass speculation.

Furthermore, hard science says that the earth's atmosphere is already 100% opaque in the 3 IR bands that CO2 absorbs. Thus, arguing more CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming is wild speculation at best and at worst irrational/disingenuous.

Unlike your (incorrect) assertions, I do not follow others, I have and will continue to evaluate the evidence myself. I am happy to make a prediction for you: The climate will change. It will be either hotter or cooler than it is today. Glaciers will either grow or shrink. Sea levels will either rise or fall. The one constant that we know is that the climate is never constant. To assert that what we see today is atypical and caused by humans based on the last 300 years of observation is irrational and completely ignores the facts at hand. https://static.skepticalscienc...

Caitlyn Jenner commits a hat crime, but of course another sad reality is the lib view now is that by wearing a MAGA hat means by default you have committed hate crime so now Caitlyn is associated with hate. How many others will be wrongly accused.

Linked on this propublia site.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Kennedy tries to halt windmills

It wasn't coal that Ted Kennedy wanted. Instead, it was oil burning power plants that he supported.

The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

Have you been in a cave? They're complaining about white cops and the police culture.

Have you? NWA was calliging out racist black cops in the mid-80s, and I am sure they weren't the first.

Check your confirmation bias.

Check yours.

Ambush-style killings of police up 167% this year. (2016) You think that's just coincidence?
These assassins had BLM affiliations or sympathies.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Here are some very anti-white racist statements by BLM co-founder Yusra K. Ali.
https://archive.fo/kpjIG/e8a79...

Remember this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Many lawsuits pending for their violence:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/aut...

BLM has never said anything of the sort.

You're right, they said far worse. Like saying all "white people are sub-human" I've heard that before...coming from black supremacists. Very uh...diverse, so progressive. Gee, they're just like Margaret Sanger and her belief that blacks were sub-human need to be culled, and the perfect way to do that was via planned parenthood. Never mind her pro-eugenics stance or anything...

Clinton was right then, and HAD CONSERVATIVES HEEDED HER WARNING we'd not be in the horrific situation of having a President who panders to, and gives power, to Neo-Nazis, and who is in probability one himself.

You didn't even listen to him when he blamed both sides for the violence did you. You're so heavily invested in identity politics that you're willing to swallow whatever bullshit is shoved down your throat. You also likely believe that antifa is really the good guys, and really aren't just racists on the left.

If you stop reading the MSM and get some real news you'd see it - http://www.washingtontimes.com... . Look at pictures of any planet from 30 years ago and today and you can see changes with your own eyes

Errm, the news you linked to talks about "larger variations over thousands of years", not 30.

Do the Kennedy's still have armed guards on "their" beaches?

Not only that, but they tried to stop a wind farm from being built that might spoil the view from one of their many estates. If it were one of the common people trying to block a wind or solar farm, any number of Kennedys would of course be the first in line to condemn them as evil anti-environmentalists.

If you stop reading the MSM and get some real news you'd see it - http://www.washingtontimes.com... . Look at pictures of any planet from 30 years ago and today and you can see changes with your own eyes. They are actually visible and show warming.

Not man, nature. Only the brainwashed still think Man is causing it.

Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.

Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.

I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).

I was reading about the DOJ slush fund(**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.

This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny, 11 California counties have more registered voters than adults, all the leaks and outright disobeying of executive orders from the WH.

And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless, then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results, then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?), leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander, and rioted for weeks. They thought all this was OK, if it somehow got them to their goals. For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots, and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.

All this *in addition* to the Sanders thing, and getting special treatment in the press and for the debates, blocking reasonable voter registration, and suppressing the military vote.

There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out. The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.

I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...

(*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.

(**) DOJ plea-bargains where the offending company pays its fine to charity, but the DOJ only chooses charities that promote left-wing causes.

Is that why Chris Mathews had a thrill run up his leg during the Obama inauguration? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Obama had the friendliest media coverage in the last 30 plus years. George W. Bush was treated so unfairly by the establishment media that it literally launched Fox news as one of the largest cable news outlets because people (especially conservatives) were so sick of the rampant left wing bias. By any meaningful statistic George W Bush and Trump have both been treated horribly by the press, and Obama had a continuous love fest with the exception of Fox News (who he tried to kick out of the WH news pool and lied to a fedeal judge so he could spy on their reporters like James Rosen). With the exception of Rush Limbaugh and a few other COMMENTATORS with relatively small audiences (not the national news outlets) Bill Clinton got very favorable coverage until he was caught sexually harassing an intern in the white house (and there he earned what he got). Hillary Clinton was caught during the campaign getting questions passed to her ahead of the debate from Donna Brazile of CNN, a clear violation of debate standards, and an unfair advantage for which Brazile was fired. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

"President Trump handles criticism very differently than earlier presidents. For one, reporters who interview him say that he speaks a little too casually, and often is the leak, which does him no favors. The other is that he "hits back" when criticized, even over trivial things."

I agree that Trump hits back every time, no mater how trivial, but I think that is due in large part to what happened with George W. Bush. Bush chose to be classy and didn't "stoop to their level" with the openly hostile media and that ended up with him essentially being constantly pounded by the press who saw it as weakness. Bush was certainly not the best public speaker, but he was also not a blithering idiot, anyone who thinks he was is an idiot and ignorant of historical facts.

"Most kids who survived an American high school know that fighting back against a crowd that's teasing you will only make matters worse."

Apparently Trump learned the same lesson that I did in high school. If you have a crowd that is teasing you, single out the most obnoxious one and beat the piss out of him. I only had to do that one time and I never go teased again. I tried ignoring them for a year beforehand (like George Bush taking the high ground) and that was definitely not the solution.

"The President of the United States has been the nation's punching bag for a very long time; there's just nothing new about scathing presidential criticism."

By commentators and comedians maybe, but hard news people are supposed to be sticking to facts, and so far with Trump that is clearly not the case. They are actively participating in an attempt to steal the election from Trump because they personally hate the man, and if/when Trump is cleared of any wrong doing (which he almost certainly will, after 8 months of investigation, all the facts so far do not indicate any criminal activity), I hope Trump sues each and every news outlet who reported falsely on the Russia "scandal". If CNN and a few other major outlets go the way of Gawker, the shit heads running the other outlets will get their minions under control for fear of losing t

Yes, in very recent news it has been stated that the military will be doing so: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

You see, it's reported that Russia has already tested such a missile.

In fact, the Russians claim that because of the missile they tested, our missile defenses are already obsolete.

That doesn't mean we were completely safe before this missile.

Well, we don't know if there's evidence of rampant voter fraud.

We know there isn't evidence of rampant voter fraud. If there was evidence, you'd be able to produce it. Instead, states like North Carolina find...almost no voter fraud.

But hey, you may never know that Trump didn't win the Popular vote either, which makes you a double-sore loser.

Mainly democrat states are blocking the government from trying to determine how much fraud there actually is.

Nope. It's actually mainly Republicans like Kris Kobach miseleading the courts.

But let's go with the extrapolated report from earlier in the year. Which figures that somewhere between 4m and 6m people voted illegally. That includes everything from voting twice, to non-citizens.

Hmm, you want to cite a bogus report with no basis in reality? Hurts your own credibility, as bad as believing a James O'Keefe video.

Of course, if you do insist it's genuine that the elections are so compromised, then absolutely no elected official is legitimate, and they must all be removed, and their official acts rescinded.

The real reason behind voter ID laws is for Republicans to make it harder for people who tend to vote Democratic to vote at all.

So let's run with that. The reason democrats are for amnesty of illegals, is to make sure they always win by subverting democracy.

Sure man, we've been hearing that since the Naturalization Act of 1798.

You keep trying, but for some reason, people ain't buying.

Almost as bad as the whole Trumpcare business.

Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. We have no evidence of rampant voter fraud, yet are told we need to implement voter ID.

Well, we don't know if there's evidence of rampant voter fraud. Mainly democrat states are blocking the government from trying to determine how much fraud there actually is. But let's go with the extrapolated report from earlier in the year. Which figures that somewhere between 4m and 6m people voted illegally. That includes everything from voting twice, to non-citizens.

The real reason behind voter ID laws is for Republicans to make it harder for people who tend to vote Democratic to vote at all.

So let's run with that. The reason democrats are for amnesty of illegals, is to make sure they always win by subverting democracy.

There is this.

And of course There is this. And this.

Uh, the State removed 5500 NONCITIZEN registered voters, and at least 1,852 of those ILLEGAL VOTERS actually cast ballots. You keep trying to pitch this as a "right wing nut jobs" kind of thing, but this is hard, factual actions taken by States. Actual REAL illegal votes cast (7,000 in Virginia alone). Documented. Get off the "conservative nut job" talking points. Non-citizen voting is a real thing.

Nope. The Commonwealth of Virginia merely purged a few voters, based on an arbitrary process without actually checking their citizenship status in a robust and rigorous manner. They did nothing to show that the votes were illegal.

Let me know when Virginia actually prosecutes these people, or invalidates any elections.

Otherwise, you're just being a nutjob, pretending that you care.

Or do you want to disenfranchise your fellow citizens? Do you want it to be "it's not the votes that count, but who counts the vote"?

That's what Virginia is doing, by removing people without checking. Their process already had documented errors. Not to mention their gerrymandering which is impactful even if they don't play games with the voting process.

But hey, show you care, write a sternly worded letter to Kris Kobach and complain that HE claimed people were dead when they weren't, denied people's legal citizenship, and otherwise compromised the integrity of the process.

Not going to do it? Well, then, back to the peanut farm with you.

Re "They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents."
The USA does not keep count of "how" each person voted. The voting is done in secret.

The problem is the numbers of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections.
Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes (June 19, 2017)
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes (June 19, 2017)
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
re noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections.

Sure thing. This is from Alabama. This is a list of acceptable photo voter ID that is acceptable. Here is an article about the closure of 29 different county DMV offices. Here is proof that the "mobile ID centers" on make a single stop in each county, and only for two hours at a time. A federal lawsuit will start in September of 2017.

Now, one could claim that it's all due to budget cuts, or such. That it's not some type of voter disenfranchisement plan. Perhaps if this wasn't in Alabama, that might be believable. I'll let you find the numerous citations on Alabama's long history of racism, segregation, and so on...shouldn't take you too long. Hanlon's Razor should always be considered...but when it comes to Alabama and racism, so should Heinlein's Razor:"...but don't rule out malice."

Actually there is tons of evidence that home schooled kids are smarter than public schooled kids, the (specious) argument by pro state school surrogates is just that they start out smarter, but the fact is they score higher across the board on the standardized test than their public school counterparts.

"Five areas of academic pursuit were measured. In reading, the average home-schooler scored at the 89th percentile; language, 84th percentile; math, 84th percentile; science, 86th percentile; and social studies, 84th percentile. In the core studies (reading, language and math), the average home-schooler scored at the 88th percentile." http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Anything over 50th percentile is scoring higher than the average in public schools. So overall at the 88th percentile, home schooled kids are scoring almost 40% higher than public schools.

I believe fraud was already proven several times:

CNN reported that James Comey would testify he did NOT tell Trump that he wansn't under investigation. The next day Comey, under oath said that he told Trump he was not under investigation several times.

3 CNN "journalists" were forced to resign (read fired) for publishing a false story about a Trump associate that was totally baseless. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

A CNN producer was caught on hidden camera admitting that the Trump Russia scandal was BS: http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/...

Van Jones, a former Obama lackey and CNN contributor was also caught on undercover camera admitting the same thing: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Pretty sure you would win that case plus legal fees plus counter suit damages for frivilous suit from CNN...