Silly hobbies like driving vehicles or cooking pot roast with a pressure cooker? That sort of thing? I don't want to die in a crowd of 80 other people because someone who's been allowed to drive has decided today to run down a bunch of pedestrians. Or die because someone who thinks I'm insufficiently obedient to allah has decided to use $50 worth of kitchen tools and hardware store supplies to slaughter a crowd full of people. Prevention is the key. No more passenger vans or pressure cookers, obviously.
It's amazing (but not surprising) how little the lack of meaningful background/facts on this dead guy, his act, his purported "companion" and his motivations matters to those who are already spinning up complex narratives to serve whatever agenda they're usually selling. Doesn't matter who we're talking about or which ax they're grinding. It's just remarkable how consistently the early period following something like this is full of what turns out to be misleading, or outright fictional information. But the speculation and misinformation (it's not even misinformation, it's something else... just fabrications in the absence of anything solid to go on) now fills in all of the social and traditional media cracks so early and so thoroughly that whenever real information emerges, it can never shake off some of the "facts" that circulated early on.
That indelible quality to whatever gets said first (see, for example, the perfectly incorrect Ferguson story that's still impervious to reality) is well understood now, and creates a sort of awful race to get into that "first mover" narrative position because that's now all that matters. It's not a new observation to say that the 24 hour news cycle generates endless blathering by talking heads looking to fill broadcast time, but the social media frosting on that cake has added an even worse and in many ways far more toxic new layer.
No, Trump's identity politics is based on white skin.
Yup, if you have to be sure not to confront the race-obsessed politics and practices and patronizing condescension of the left, and you don't mind being intellectually dishonest as you slurp up fake news as if you actually believe it, then perhaps it makes a childish sort of sense to go with that narrative. Not fooling anyone, of course, but sure, if that makes you feel better about preferring the party that's actually BEEN overtly racist for the last century or so and still is. Carry on!
Bandwidth, processing, and batteries are not in endless supply. Some sacred things (like absolutely live-synced all the time globally aware perfect client apps that are up to the nanosecond with back end data) are absurd perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good goals in the real, actual, finite world.
Trumpism is purely about identity politics on steroids.
Right. His sort of identity politics is based on what people do and say, how they act and what they proclaim. Whereas the left's long standing embrace of identity politics is entirely about putting people in boxes based on their DNA. So you've got his identity politics, which says "If you identify as being regularly shit on by crushing regulatory burdens, irrational trade agreements, people willing to cheat and lie and sneak across the border in order to cut ahead of honest immigrants and get generous entitlements" and such, then he said that means you should vote for him. If your identity politics says, "If your skin pigment is too pale, you're inherently guilty and evil and hurting other people just by the fact of your existence, and you should vote for Hillary as a form of atonement," then you get exactly what we saw happen. People realized that sort of crap was absurd, and didn't reward her supporters for endlessly trotting it out.
The Russians were sure she would win, and simply wanted everyone arguing with each other in order to weaken her administration. That doesn't support Trump, it supports THEM.
It's well known that Trump won the election in no small part due to inexpensive, highly targeted Facebook ads.
No, it's commonly ASSERTED by bitter lefty losers who didn't get their queen as promised. She, of course, and her supporters, spent orders of magnitude more money on Facebook ads screeching to the hilltops about the evil and incompetence of her xenophobic, racist opponent. If spending on FB ads impacted the election, all it did was make her lose by less than she otherwise would have.
That's what I said. They helped Trump win, because they thought he would be better for THEM, i.e. worse for the US.
They (the Russians), just like everybody else running every other country - including this one - along with all of academia, pretty much all of the press, and certainly the lefty establishment including Clinton herself... were convinced SHE would win. Right up through election night. The Russians were simply doing what they ALWAYS do. Everything they can to make sure that whoever gets elected or holds power in a country that is an adversary of theirs is weakened by internal strife, busy dealing with domestic noise, and otherwise too distracted to deal with Russia's own agenda. They WANTED Clinton to win, and to be weak while in office. They didn't have any more magic insight into electoral behavior than did all of the experts who were breathlessly telling us what a landslide Clinton was going to bring.
fake groups "supporting" the left like AntiFa
There's nothing fake about the left's favorite militant brown shirts. They LIKE having violent thugs to beat people into silence on college campuses. It's what the political left has always done, and they wouldn't be the left without having their pet head crackers, store-burners, and speech silencers. Hasn't changed a bit in decades. The left loves thugs in masks beating people bloody and destroying other people's stuff. It's baked into their world view.
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world. But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
Please explain again how you live in "the greatest democracy in the world"?
Yes, you DO need an explanation, since you're deliberately ignorant on the matter. We don't live in a Democracy (thank you, founding fathers and the brilliant constitution they wrote). That works fine for town councils and garden clubs. We, instead, live in a constitutional republic, made up of fifty separate states, with considerable power left to those states, on purpose. We organize the national elections that impact the things those states do together around the fact that we don't want the smug, condescending hipster residents in just two cities to be able to do things like ruling the lives of, say, the farmers that feed them even as they sneer at them and refuse (a la Clinton) to even set foot in their states to hear from them or dirty themselves talking to mere workers as they demand the office they're told they deserve. Mob rule is unacceptable in a complex, sprawling federation of fifty different states. It's why we have an electoral college and a series of checks and balances to make sure that people as uninformed as you don't run the show.
Enjoy your existence in Canada. Your economy couldn't exist without having the US people as customers for the trees you cut down and the minerals and carbon fuels you dig out. Your mischaracterization of illegal aliens relocating to avoid prosecution and deportation for their cheating as somehow being "Americans seeking asylum" is laughable. Even more amusing is how you're sugar coating your government's ACTUAL position on this. Your immigration minister, Ahmed Hussen, issued a warning to people who seem to think that Canada presents a friendlier environment as they look to relocate there having first entered the US after leaving their own countries: "It’s not something that we want people to do. We want people to claim asylum in the first country that they’re in, which in this case is the U.S.” Your own man in charge of immigration has said out loud that he doesn't want people coming in from via the US. And of course Canada doesn't consider any actual US citizens to be in any way in need of asylum in Canada - there's no mechanism for relocation to Canada on those grounds. All of which you know, but are pretending you don't so you can crank out some phony smugness. How Canadian of you.
Getting Americans to vote against their own interests
Putting the wildly corrupt Clintons back into the power they demanded so they could continue to enrich themselves selling access... THAT would have been against Americans' own interests. Giving Hillary Clinton the power to nominate Supreme Court justices when she came right out and told us that she was going to use that power as a foil against a not-liking-her-agenda legislature that she knew wouldn't follow her demands... THAT would have been voting against Americans' own interests.
And they probably also tried to keep others home by saying Clinton already had won
No, that was Clinton herself, her very rich supporters, and the vast majority of academia and the press who all supporter and considered her the presumptive winner a year before the election. Clinton was so sure she had already won that she bought the house next door for the Secret Service to use (you know, we can't have them in HER house, those peasants), and couldn't even trouble herself to set foot ONCE in states like Wisconsin, because she assumed they were going to follow her royal edicts and vote for her as demanded. She and her party fell for their own lies about her appeal as a candidate, and got exactly what they deserved.
I'm not American. I'm looking in from the outside, and Trump's lip prints are all over Putin's dick.
No, angry-at-losing-despite-what-they-spent lefty news outlets have their prints all over the narrative you've chosen to explain why the wildly unlikable, robotically sociopathic, serially lying, fantasically corrupt Hillary Clinton lost an election despite a couple billion dollars having been spent to guarantee her coronation.
Do you think perhaps you could string together a coherent sentence or two aimed at conveying your point in a way that doesn't sound like you're in fifth grade?
You're confusing "afraid of" with "tired of whiny identity politics virtue signaling being mistaken for actual insight, or for anything remotely entertaining."
For fucks sake, are all alt-right racist bigots as clueless as you ? Don't you even get what principles the Star Trek universe was built on back in the sixties ?
It was built on essentially the OPPOSITE of everything that entitle, whiny, identy-politics liberals today hold dear. THAT's the SJW crap, and TOS wasn't about that in the least. Which you know. So why the troll? What's your agenda?
The horror portion here is that these people have to take those jobs.
As opposed to WANTING to spend a month or so making some extra pocket money? Definitely better to prevent that. Shouldn't be allowed, ever. Age should prevent you from ever doing anything but sitting around and hoping your fixed income is enough for some of things you want to do besides eating.
But for most people the difference between 5 meters and 1 meter in GPS position hardly qualifies as a "massive change".
For things like vehicle navigation, the difference between knowing you're in the straight-through toll lane vs on an exit ramp (a difference sometimes of just a couple meters) can be very significant.
The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.
Tell that to the people who have had their careers ended and have gone to federal prison for doing FAR less than what she did, or were sent to prison only for lying about it. The FBI didn't say that nobody's ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, Comey said that given the circumstances he didn't think he could get DoJ to prosecute this particular case. It was in that exact context that he said if it were anyone else, they'd face legal trouble for what they did. You're deliberately choosing to pretend you didn't hear him say those words.
So that's also why the Democrats do the same, only worse? Monolithic Democrat state legislatures are responsible for some of the most gratuitous gerrymandering in the country. But since you like to cherrypick your outrage, it's safe to say you won't bother looking. Let alone comment on Democrat strongholds that have little problems like more votes being cast than there are registered voters to cast them. But sure, you just carry on, and blame the fact that Hillary Clinton couldn't trouble herself to even set foot in Wisconsin during the campaign on... what? The congressional districts there? I suppose that's also why she lost Michigan? You need to get a clue.
Hillary and her supporters spent an estimated $1.2 Billion [nypost.com], roughly twice what Trump spent. And she lost. And she blames the Ruskies for her loss. Seriously?
While it IS important to point that out for perspective, it's still missing the point. On top of her personally being a terrible candidate and thoroughly unlikable, dishonest person... she's only one piece of the real landscape. In the last few years, her part has lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the state governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, by association the Supreme Court, and the millions of two-time Obama voters who left in disgust when Hillary was what the party said was their best representative. Sure, a less sociopathically robotic harpy of a candidate might have actually beat the populist opponent in that one race, but the party's endless parade of identity politics and message of entitlement, porous borders, vilifying people who start businesses, open and sneering contempt for everyone in fly-over country, and all the rest is the real issue, and that's what's cost the Democrats more or less all of their political juice. And parts of that party are screaming that their main problem is they haven't lurched hard enough into far left sensibilities and policies. Still not getting it. She wasn't the problem (though she was A problem), she was a symptom of the problem the Democrats have been inflicting upon themselves for quite a while.
It's always so funny when a lying, anonymous partisan shill tells other people to be quiet.
You might as well be accusing her of tearing the tags off mattresses
No, tearing off mattress tags isn't the same as destroying government documents under subpoena. It's not the same as handing classified material (some of it extremely sensitive, with highly compartmentalized access) to people who don't even have clearances for storage in their personal home offices. We can tell you know that such crimes are what she got away with because you don't ever actually address the substance of the matter, and just go for the usual juvenile, lazy ad hominem for the benefit of the echo chamber you hope you're in. Thanks for being true to form.
Mostly because the accusations against Hillary turned out to be bullshit as the investigation showed.
Which ones? The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts? The ones where all of her staff had to be offered immunity deals before they would even talk about it? The ones where the simply broke federal law at numerous levels and looked you in the eye and lied about (and still does to this day), but assures us that her husband's private meeting with the chief law enforcement officer who would be tasked with indicting her, and who then had to recuse herself, didn't have any impact at all? Gotcha.
You're confusing "got away with it" with "didn't do it."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to die because of your silly hobby.
Silly hobbies like driving vehicles or cooking pot roast with a pressure cooker? That sort of thing? I don't want to die in a crowd of 80 other people because someone who's been allowed to drive has decided today to run down a bunch of pedestrians. Or die because someone who thinks I'm insufficiently obedient to allah has decided to use $50 worth of kitchen tools and hardware store supplies to slaughter a crowd full of people. Prevention is the key. No more passenger vans or pressure cookers, obviously.
It's amazing (but not surprising) how little the lack of meaningful background/facts on this dead guy, his act, his purported "companion" and his motivations matters to those who are already spinning up complex narratives to serve whatever agenda they're usually selling. Doesn't matter who we're talking about or which ax they're grinding. It's just remarkable how consistently the early period following something like this is full of what turns out to be misleading, or outright fictional information. But the speculation and misinformation (it's not even misinformation, it's something else ... just fabrications in the absence of anything solid to go on) now fills in all of the social and traditional media cracks so early and so thoroughly that whenever real information emerges, it can never shake off some of the "facts" that circulated early on.
That indelible quality to whatever gets said first (see, for example, the perfectly incorrect Ferguson story that's still impervious to reality) is well understood now, and creates a sort of awful race to get into that "first mover" narrative position because that's now all that matters. It's not a new observation to say that the 24 hour news cycle generates endless blathering by talking heads looking to fill broadcast time, but the social media frosting on that cake has added an even worse and in many ways far more toxic new layer.
No, Trump's identity politics is based on white skin.
Yup, if you have to be sure not to confront the race-obsessed politics and practices and patronizing condescension of the left, and you don't mind being intellectually dishonest as you slurp up fake news as if you actually believe it, then perhaps it makes a childish sort of sense to go with that narrative. Not fooling anyone, of course, but sure, if that makes you feel better about preferring the party that's actually BEEN overtly racist for the last century or so and still is. Carry on!
Bandwidth, processing, and batteries are not in endless supply. Some sacred things (like absolutely live-synced all the time globally aware perfect client apps that are up to the nanosecond with back end data) are absurd perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good goals in the real, actual, finite world.
Trumpism is purely about identity politics on steroids.
Right. His sort of identity politics is based on what people do and say, how they act and what they proclaim. Whereas the left's long standing embrace of identity politics is entirely about putting people in boxes based on their DNA. So you've got his identity politics, which says "If you identify as being regularly shit on by crushing regulatory burdens, irrational trade agreements, people willing to cheat and lie and sneak across the border in order to cut ahead of honest immigrants and get generous entitlements" and such, then he said that means you should vote for him. If your identity politics says, "If your skin pigment is too pale, you're inherently guilty and evil and hurting other people just by the fact of your existence, and you should vote for Hillary as a form of atonement," then you get exactly what we saw happen. People realized that sort of crap was absurd, and didn't reward her supporters for endlessly trotting it out.
The Russians were sure she would win, and simply wanted everyone arguing with each other in order to weaken her administration. That doesn't support Trump, it supports THEM.
Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true.
That explains why they keep having to quietly publish retractions when they get caught, over and over again, straight out lying on the subject.
It's well known that Trump won the election in no small part due to inexpensive, highly targeted Facebook ads.
No, it's commonly ASSERTED by bitter lefty losers who didn't get their queen as promised. She, of course, and her supporters, spent orders of magnitude more money on Facebook ads screeching to the hilltops about the evil and incompetence of her xenophobic, racist opponent. If spending on FB ads impacted the election, all it did was make her lose by less than she otherwise would have.
That's what I said. They helped Trump win, because they thought he would be better for THEM, i.e. worse for the US.
They (the Russians), just like everybody else running every other country - including this one - along with all of academia, pretty much all of the press, and certainly the lefty establishment including Clinton herself ... were convinced SHE would win. Right up through election night. The Russians were simply doing what they ALWAYS do. Everything they can to make sure that whoever gets elected or holds power in a country that is an adversary of theirs is weakened by internal strife, busy dealing with domestic noise, and otherwise too distracted to deal with Russia's own agenda. They WANTED Clinton to win, and to be weak while in office. They didn't have any more magic insight into electoral behavior than did all of the experts who were breathlessly telling us what a landslide Clinton was going to bring.
fake groups "supporting" the left like AntiFa
There's nothing fake about the left's favorite militant brown shirts. They LIKE having violent thugs to beat people into silence on college campuses. It's what the political left has always done, and they wouldn't be the left without having their pet head crackers, store-burners, and speech silencers. Hasn't changed a bit in decades. The left loves thugs in masks beating people bloody and destroying other people's stuff. It's baked into their world view.
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world. But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
Please explain again how you live in "the greatest democracy in the world"?
Yes, you DO need an explanation, since you're deliberately ignorant on the matter. We don't live in a Democracy (thank you, founding fathers and the brilliant constitution they wrote). That works fine for town councils and garden clubs. We, instead, live in a constitutional republic, made up of fifty separate states, with considerable power left to those states, on purpose. We organize the national elections that impact the things those states do together around the fact that we don't want the smug, condescending hipster residents in just two cities to be able to do things like ruling the lives of, say, the farmers that feed them even as they sneer at them and refuse (a la Clinton) to even set foot in their states to hear from them or dirty themselves talking to mere workers as they demand the office they're told they deserve. Mob rule is unacceptable in a complex, sprawling federation of fifty different states. It's why we have an electoral college and a series of checks and balances to make sure that people as uninformed as you don't run the show.
Enjoy your existence in Canada. Your economy couldn't exist without having the US people as customers for the trees you cut down and the minerals and carbon fuels you dig out. Your mischaracterization of illegal aliens relocating to avoid prosecution and deportation for their cheating as somehow being "Americans seeking asylum" is laughable. Even more amusing is how you're sugar coating your government's ACTUAL position on this. Your immigration minister, Ahmed Hussen, issued a warning to people who seem to think that Canada presents a friendlier environment as they look to relocate there having first entered the US after leaving their own countries: "It’s not something that we want people to do. We want people to claim asylum in the first country that they’re in, which in this case is the U.S.” Your own man in charge of immigration has said out loud that he doesn't want people coming in from via the US. And of course Canada doesn't consider any actual US citizens to be in any way in need of asylum in Canada - there's no mechanism for relocation to Canada on those grounds. All of which you know, but are pretending you don't so you can crank out some phony smugness. How Canadian of you.
Getting Americans to vote against their own interests
Putting the wildly corrupt Clintons back into the power they demanded so they could continue to enrich themselves selling access ... THAT would have been against Americans' own interests. Giving Hillary Clinton the power to nominate Supreme Court justices when she came right out and told us that she was going to use that power as a foil against a not-liking-her-agenda legislature that she knew wouldn't follow her demands ... THAT would have been voting against Americans' own interests.
And they probably also tried to keep others home by saying Clinton already had won
No, that was Clinton herself, her very rich supporters, and the vast majority of academia and the press who all supporter and considered her the presumptive winner a year before the election. Clinton was so sure she had already won that she bought the house next door for the Secret Service to use (you know, we can't have them in HER house, those peasants), and couldn't even trouble herself to set foot ONCE in states like Wisconsin, because she assumed they were going to follow her royal edicts and vote for her as demanded. She and her party fell for their own lies about her appeal as a candidate, and got exactly what they deserved.
I'm not American. I'm looking in from the outside, and Trump's lip prints are all over Putin's dick.
No, angry-at-losing-despite-what-they-spent lefty news outlets have their prints all over the narrative you've chosen to explain why the wildly unlikable, robotically sociopathic, serially lying, fantasically corrupt Hillary Clinton lost an election despite a couple billion dollars having been spent to guarantee her coronation.
The tough hombres & rapists comments come to mind
Surely you're not yet another person who thinks that "MS-13" and "rapist" are races?
history has shown that the conservatives (who are holding all the money)
If you're going to use suck a laughably counter-factual meme as a foundational part of your thesis, be prepared to be laughed at.
Do you think perhaps you could string together a coherent sentence or two aimed at conveying your point in a way that doesn't sound like you're in fifth grade?
You're confusing "afraid of" with "tired of whiny identity politics virtue signaling being mistaken for actual insight, or for anything remotely entertaining."
For fucks sake, are all alt-right racist bigots as clueless as you ? Don't you even get what principles the Star Trek universe was built on back in the sixties ?
It was built on essentially the OPPOSITE of everything that entitle, whiny, identy-politics liberals today hold dear. THAT's the SJW crap, and TOS wasn't about that in the least. Which you know. So why the troll? What's your agenda?
The horror portion here is that these people have to take those jobs.
As opposed to WANTING to spend a month or so making some extra pocket money? Definitely better to prevent that. Shouldn't be allowed, ever. Age should prevent you from ever doing anything but sitting around and hoping your fixed income is enough for some of things you want to do besides eating.
But for most people the difference between 5 meters and 1 meter in GPS position hardly qualifies as a "massive change".
For things like vehicle navigation, the difference between knowing you're in the straight-through toll lane vs on an exit ramp (a difference sometimes of just a couple meters) can be very significant.
The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.
Tell that to the people who have had their careers ended and have gone to federal prison for doing FAR less than what she did, or were sent to prison only for lying about it. The FBI didn't say that nobody's ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, Comey said that given the circumstances he didn't think he could get DoJ to prosecute this particular case. It was in that exact context that he said if it were anyone else, they'd face legal trouble for what they did. You're deliberately choosing to pretend you didn't hear him say those words.
So that's also why the Democrats do the same, only worse? Monolithic Democrat state legislatures are responsible for some of the most gratuitous gerrymandering in the country. But since you like to cherrypick your outrage, it's safe to say you won't bother looking. Let alone comment on Democrat strongholds that have little problems like more votes being cast than there are registered voters to cast them. But sure, you just carry on, and blame the fact that Hillary Clinton couldn't trouble herself to even set foot in Wisconsin during the campaign on ... what? The congressional districts there? I suppose that's also why she lost Michigan? You need to get a clue.
Hillary and her supporters spent an estimated $1.2 Billion [nypost.com], roughly twice what Trump spent. And she lost. And she blames the Ruskies for her loss. Seriously?
While it IS important to point that out for perspective, it's still missing the point. On top of her personally being a terrible candidate and thoroughly unlikable, dishonest person ... she's only one piece of the real landscape. In the last few years, her part has lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the state governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, by association the Supreme Court, and the millions of two-time Obama voters who left in disgust when Hillary was what the party said was their best representative. Sure, a less sociopathically robotic harpy of a candidate might have actually beat the populist opponent in that one race, but the party's endless parade of identity politics and message of entitlement, porous borders, vilifying people who start businesses, open and sneering contempt for everyone in fly-over country, and all the rest is the real issue, and that's what's cost the Democrats more or less all of their political juice. And parts of that party are screaming that their main problem is they haven't lurched hard enough into far left sensibilities and policies. Still not getting it. She wasn't the problem (though she was A problem), she was a symptom of the problem the Democrats have been inflicting upon themselves for quite a while.
You might as well be accusing her of tearing the tags off mattresses
No, tearing off mattress tags isn't the same as destroying government documents under subpoena. It's not the same as handing classified material (some of it extremely sensitive, with highly compartmentalized access) to people who don't even have clearances for storage in their personal home offices. We can tell you know that such crimes are what she got away with because you don't ever actually address the substance of the matter, and just go for the usual juvenile, lazy ad hominem for the benefit of the echo chamber you hope you're in. Thanks for being true to form.
Mostly because the accusations against Hillary turned out to be bullshit as the investigation showed.
Which ones? The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts? The ones where all of her staff had to be offered immunity deals before they would even talk about it? The ones where the simply broke federal law at numerous levels and looked you in the eye and lied about (and still does to this day), but assures us that her husband's private meeting with the chief law enforcement officer who would be tasked with indicting her, and who then had to recuse herself, didn't have any impact at all? Gotcha.
You're confusing "got away with it" with "didn't do it."