Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the "A-Tale-of-Flodden-Field" dept.

5News reports:

President Donald Trump appears to have changed his story about a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower that is pivotal to the special counsel's investigation, tweeting that his son met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer to collect information about his political opponent.

[...] That is a far different explanation than Trump gave 13 months ago, when a statement dictated by the president but released under the name of Donald Trump Jr., read: "We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago."

also at Vox, MSN and Mic


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:12PM (87 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:12PM (#718319)

    Trump cannot tell the truth. He's one of those people who needs to feel like they are getting over on someone (or everyone). He lies out of habit and out of need to hide his actions. If he was soaking wet and said it was raining I'd still have to check for myself.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Knowledge Troll on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:18PM (71 children)

      by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:18PM (#718321) Homepage Journal

      During the election one of my friend's gf's was a massive Trump supporter and was all kinds of frustrated about how much we didn't trust him. You damn liberals wouldn't take a plate full of gold if Trump handed it to you. was something she would say in fact.

      She's right, I wouldn't trust that at all. I can't believe she would. What an idiot.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:30PM (4 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:30PM (#718327)

        I wouldn't trust a plate of gold no matter who handed it to me. First off, it's likely to be fool's gold. Second, people just don't do things like that without an ulterior motive of some kind.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:09PM (3 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:09PM (#718438)

          people just don't do things like that without an ulterior motive of some kind.

          Oh, but they do - maybe not plates of gold, but things of equal value, out of the goodness of their hearts. But, you're right not to trust them. In my experience the majority of those too good to be true offers are just that, but once in a while you actually do encounter genuine generosity.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:38PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:38PM (#718512) Journal

            Oh, but they do - maybe not plates of gold, but things of equal value, out of the goodness of their hearts

            Which would still actually be illegal if from a foreign natural. We (used to) take foreign interference in our elections so seriously that we wanted to ensure it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:44PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:44PM (#718913)

              Which would still actually be illegal if from a foreign natural.

              Uhhh... yeah! That's why its OK. All the tactical assistance came from foreign synthetics. Bots aren't natural.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:14AM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:14AM (#718527)

            I have family members that could have handed out plates of gold. They didn't. They handed out checks sometimes for tax reasons, and would help in case of a real financial need, but they would never have done something remotely as tacky as "here's a plate full of gold".

            I've also worked for non-profits. Large donations as a rule come with strings attached, either express ("Name the building after me") or implied ("I'd hate to see you have to cut back on your program, but I just can't continue my support if you ______").

            As for any handouts coming in a business or political context, you can be certain that somebody is trying to pull a fast one.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:50PM (47 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:50PM (#718341) Journal

        What I struggle with, is that while what you've described is entirely true in such a way that is almost reaching a platonic ideal of the idea of truth, it's also one of those trivially reversible things.

        You know the favorite game of kinda scummy people who are really invested in "center right" politics, who will go "You know, politifact(WHO HAS A LEFT WING BIAS RABBEL) rated 2 things Barack Obama said as pants on fire" so you can't trust left wing politicians at all either.

        And you can either play their game of acknowledging that they're technically correct and have an underlying point, that liberal and left politicians lie, and fairly often. Then they're right and justified in voting for the heel who basically without remorse fucks as many of us as possible. Or you can disagree on the scope and scale and scale of the problem, and then they take a deluge of right wing talking points disconnected from context and give you a mudball of a conversation, and no goalposts where they acknowledge a point has been made.

        I dunno, it's frustrating because it feels like it's actually been decades since I've seen or participated in a good faith argument with someone on the right. At all.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:01PM (12 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:01PM (#718345)

          Yup, agreed. I blame the Fox propaganda machine feeding them lies for decades. Each Fox viewer needs a mental detox which entails dismantling their entire world view and re-building it with actual facts.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:52PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:52PM (#718452)

            I blame the Fox propaganda machine feeding them lies for decades. Each Fox viewer needs a mental detox which entails dismantling their entire world view and re-building it with actual facts.

            The Fox viewers would say the exact same thing about the other "mainstream" news oulets -- feeding their viewers lies for decades.

            Both are correct. All news organizations in the US are propaganda machines. Which set of dupes they target is the only difference.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:18PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:18PM (#718468)

              Nah, while the major outlets are definitely propaganda outlets to varying degrees Fox has consistently pushed more FUD than any other network. Fox viewers are the least informed of all news network viewers.

              Equivocating does not fit here, and of course Fox viewers would say the same because they are ignorant and fed a steady diet of lies. In this case Fox IS worse than the others by a wide margin.

              There simply is no comparison between the cult beliefs of Fox viewers and more liberal viewers. They both get lies and propaganda to varying degrees, but Fox people are much more prone to emotional beliefs that can not be swayed by facts. Facts are just fake news these days when they don't conform to the crazy GOP world view.

              • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:54AM

                by Pav (114) on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:54AM (#719246)

                Don't be blinded by partisanship. When the truth actually serves the GOP agenda they'll certainly make use of it, and they have been. I'm certainly not asking you to take my word for it - just dig down to the bottom of one small section of this Trump/Russia stuff... hell, even stick to mainstream sources! Just get past the headlines, and find the actual meat in the last few paragraphs. You might be (unpleasantly) surprised.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:21PM (7 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:21PM (#718471) Journal

              The Fox viewers would say the exact same thing about the other "mainstream" news oulets -- feeding their viewers lies for decades.

              Of course they would claim that without any evidence to back it up.

              Viewers of reality-based news would note evidence such as the fact that Fox viewers are able to correctly answer the fewest factual questions about the news. [businessinsider.com]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:51PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:51PM (#718489)

                Obvious reply: "BUT THE OTHER NEWS OUTLETS STILL TELL LIES!"

                Yeah no shit a/c no shit, but the scope of the lies and the propaganda tactics make a big distinction.

                Fox News is reality based like North Korea is a democracy.

              • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:17AM (2 children)

                by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:17AM (#718529)

                If I recall correctly, there have been studies showing that regular Fox News actually do worse on those kinds of pop quizzes than people who have not read or watched any news whatsoever. As in, they do worse than random chance or guessing. That's impressive in a twisted sort of way.

                --
                The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:32PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:32PM (#718750)

                  If I recall correctly, there have been studies showing that regular Fox News actually do worse on those kinds of pop quizzes than people who have not read or watched any news whatsoever. As in, they do worse than random chance or guessing. That's impressive in a twisted sort of way.

                  Or it might say more about the 'quiz' being given.

                • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday August 09 2018, @04:06AM

                  by Pav (114) on Thursday August 09 2018, @04:06AM (#719251)

                  "A stopped watch is right twice a day". When the truth actually serves the Trump and/or GOP agenda they certainly won't shrink from using it. Even the deputy head of Obamas FBI has said there's probably no real truth to the Trump/Russia stuff (because there would have been leaks waaay before now). He certainly isn't a Trump supporter, and hoped the Mueller investigation would turn up enough garden variety corruption to impeach, which it most probably will... Both Washington and the average billionaire are neck deep in that kind of thing. I'm no fan of Trump, but the left will be hoisted on its own petard after Trump is out... already Black Lives Matter, the progressive left more generally, and even the anti-intervention right have been called Putin puppets and/or traitors in the media.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:37AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:37AM (#718566)

                Last night I watched the documentary "The Brainwashing of My Father" [imdb.com] which added some info to the puzzle for me:

                * Roger Ailes was Nixon's tv image consultant

                * He was already working on the fox news project in the 70s, his handwritten notes & signature are all over
                    an anonymous memo that delineated much of fox's tactics, including the phrase "fair and balanced."

                * The shift of news reporting from "objective truth" to "balanced" was one of Ailes's goals
                    because it gives equal weight to bullshit as it does to fact, and he succeeded in reshaping
                    the way nearly all television news and much print news is reported, its no longer about truth
                    its only about false balance.

                * Endorphins are released in response to anger, raging can be addictive

                * Hate radio has a semi-captive audience in commuters (obvious)
                    (counterpoint: I've heard that NPR is surprisingly popular among truckers,
                      but NPR doesn't do jack to market to them, major blindspot)

                * Clarence Thomas (whose wife has made a career of being a right-wing nut job)
                    admitted to regularly taping and listening to rush limbaugh's daily 3-hour radio show
                    in lieu of "the mainstream media"
                    Also officiated limbaugh's 3rd wedding at his own house in VA

                * Scalia admitted to getting most of his news from "talk radio guys" and explicitly not NPR
                    (but he did not mention limbaugh by name, said he liked former drug czar bill bennett but usually did not catch his show)

                * Its possible to deprogram RWNJs, it works almost exactly like deprogramming "traditional" cultists -
                    show them irrefutable proof that their cult's biggest lies are false and eventually their belief system
                    will shatter.

                    But the example in the movie (the "Father") was different - he was only deprogrammed when his wife took control
                    of his media consumption and switched in other sources, she didn't fully block the RWNJ stuff,
                    but she started putting unabashedly liberal news in front of the dad (alternet, truthout, mother jones)
                    I don't see that easily scaling up for most consumers of the million little lies that fox tells.

              • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:46AM (1 child)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:46AM (#718574) Journal

                Yes, and leftists, progressives, and fellow travelers push socialism without any evidence to back them up. And, in effect, anyone who rejects socialism is alt-right, whether they subscribe to any right wing beliefs or not.

                • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:04AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:04AM (#718621)

                  There is tons of evidence that socialism works, see every nordic country, where average quality of life is substantially better than in hyper capitalistic USA.

                  One of the biggest lies that your gods and masters have sold you cultists is that socialism and communism are the same thing. Hell, they literally paid off preachers to sell that shit to their flocks. They held contesst for the best anti-socialism sermons. That's how that anti-semite motherfucker Billy Graham made his way onto the stage. The Garden of Eden, he told a rally in 1952, had been a paradise with “no union dues, no labor leaders, no snakes, no disease.” A Christian worker “would not stoop to take unfair advantage” of his employer by joining a union.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:13AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:13AM (#718665)

              Both are correct. All news organizations in the US are propaganda machines. Which set of dupes they target is the only difference.

              False equivalence is a tool of fascism. Organizations like fox are fundamentally different from legitimate news organizations. Fox unabashedly pushes propaganda, it does not care about accuracy. Errors are not mistakes, they are deliberate and go uncorrected . Real news organizations actually fire people for that kind of shit [nytimes.com] and then they go on to start their own dark-money funded propaganda outlets [quora.com] and marry up into republican royalty. [msn.com]

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:06PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:06PM (#718435)

          “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

          ― Jean Paul-Sartre
          Anti‐Semite and Jew [1944]

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:48AM (1 child)

            by driverless (4770) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:48AM (#718613)

            Wow. He managed to describe both Fox and numerous members of the Trump administration more than half a century in advance.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:07AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:07AM (#718641)

              Its because human nature doesn't really change. It just ebbs and flows, these guys are cut from the same cloth as the nazis. We've just had such a poor education in history that we have to re-discover it all over again. I mean, these fuckers are putting babies in cages, drugging the older kids [washingtonpost.com] and blaming it all on a black man and his popularity with his base is higher than its ever been.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:12PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:12PM (#718439)

          With the depth of information available these days, it's hardly worth arguing at all - everybody has access to more facts than they can deal with, you'll never "open someone's eyes" with a surprising truth that hasn't been analyzed and spun into oblivion by both sides. At this point, it's mostly coming down to biology first, and current economic position a distant second: some people are just wired conservative, some are wired liberal, and the rare ones that aren't pretty much pre-destined to one or the other are swayed more by their own current circumstances than anything else.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:53AM (#718582)

            some people are just wired conservative, some are wired liberal,

            Your terminology is incorrect. It isn't liberal versus conservative. Its liberal versus illiberal. White supremacy is not conservative, its illiberal. I mean literally, illiberal - an illiberal democracy is one in which the electorate is not the same group as the population. And that's been the goal of the GOP even since the voting rights act was passed.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:36PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:36PM (#718446)

          Think about why it is unsurprising that:

          it feels like it's actually been decades since I've seen or participated in a good faith argument with someone on the right

          Yeah, maybe you should try to argue in good faith? Or maybe, along the lines of Wikipedia's editing guidelines, you should "assume good faith" in your opponents.

          From the other side of the fence, I feel much the same about many leftists. There are two kinds, the dumb masses and the pure evil. The dumb masses really believe that leftist shit. The pure evil ones, generally those with more power and intellect, are taking the gamble that somehow they will not be among the starving masses when the shit hits the fan.

          I think the trouble here is that you have based your whole worldview on a defective ideology. It isn't easy to take the red pill and #WalkAway when all your identity is ctrl-left and you know with 100% certainty that your "friends" will instantly be hostile if you dare to question the narrative or even fail to participate in the hate sessions.

          I am surrounded by conservatives. I could claim to miss Obama or have voted for Hillary, and my safety would not be jeopardized. It's different for people in ctrl-left enclaves like San Francisco, you know it, and you know this is wrong. You're on the side of wrongness, and you know it, but you can never admit it.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:56PM (4 children)

            by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:56PM (#718454) Journal

            You can't ask for good faith and then libel "leftists", unless you are a hypocrite.

            Left [google.com.au] doesn't mean the same thing in every country. The US seems to have "centre/a bit right" and "right/far right".

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
            • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:09PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:09PM (#718461)

              At least here in the USA, libel involves facts that are false. I stated nothing that was false.

              Your diagram is libel. Conservative families are based on fear??? Leftists somehow want a "level playing field"... we're ignoring that EVEN TODAY there are leftist institutions like Harvard that are discriminating against Asians???

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:20PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:20PM (#718470)

                Trollolololol

                Git trolled son! Git gud! May your brain forever be pickled in the sweet fermented corn syrup of your homeland, may your soul rise above the swamp it spawned in, and if nothing else get your GED?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:06AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:06AM (#718622)

                  Florida grows oranges, not corn. I'm a swing state voter. :-)

                  I was however spawned out in a dry part of California, not the swamp.

                  I happen to have a useful BS degree, which is damn common with practical people. Leftists are more extreme, with more drop-outs and more PhDs... with those PhDs usually being worthless shit like gender studies and sociology. I'm getting about $165,000/year (with typical bonus), which would be like $300,000/year in urban leftist shitholes, and I don't have to step over syringes or human turds on my walk to work.

                  Also, I didn't abort my kids. I made a huge family. If my kind of people lose out, it can only be to the muslims you foolishly import. Your kind doesn't reproduce. You are also less likely to survive when civilization collapses. If you ever fully get political control, you'll die: Pol Pot and Mao emptied the cities, sending intellectuals out to do hard labor and die. Chavez and Mugabe caused shortages that led to starvation.

            • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday August 09 2018, @04:15AM

              by Pav (114) on Thursday August 09 2018, @04:15AM (#719253)

              On the issues Americans aren't much further right than anyone else... they just have a waaaay too consolidated media, and a "left" party that fights progressives HARD, and will even ally themselves with the GOP to suppress them. These sociopathic bastards would rather shout about Trump/Russia (which polls have shown the electorate doesn't care much about), than admit they lost to Trump because they cheated Bernie and elevated Trump in the hope he was the one candidate she was capable of beating.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:11AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:11AM (#718623)

          What is "a good faith argument" to you? Does this imply that the other person accept your leftist premises, because of course it is bad faith to reject them?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:01AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:01AM (#718663)

            I don't know what they consider a good faith argument, but your post is a classic example of bad faith.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:53AM (20 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:53AM (#718656) Journal

          I dunno, it's frustrating because it feels like it's actually been decades since I've seen or participated in a good faith argument with someone on the right. At all.

          I think that's not surprising given the common denominator is you [soylentnews.org].

          I mean I'm sure I'm biased because I've come to think all conservatives are human scum with no redeeming features, but every major case has been like "I refuse to bake these people a cake, because they'll take it to a gay wedding" or "My employees might choose to have sex, while choosing not to have children". I've yet to see a case where conservative "deeply held convictions" is something like "being forced to administer an abortion" or "being forced to administrate a gay wedding" or "being forced to have ketchup on eggs". It's always "do your job as normal, but with the knowledge that afterwards someone will be free to make a choice you wouldn't"

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:58AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:58AM (#718659)

            Says the queen of bad faith.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:35AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:35AM (#718679) Journal
              Says the anonymous libeler. Bad faith has a meaning. According to the Oxford Dictionary, it means:

              Intent to deceive.

              or

              (in existentialist philosophy) refusal to confront facts or choices.

              But here, I think an appropriate meaning of bad faith in a conversation or debate is to argue in a way that doesn't allow an opponent a fair chance to have their say. That can be via fallacies like leading questions or as here, via anonymous, unsupported accusations. We can't know whether you're one of the parties who has posted harassing comments before. We can't know if you even have a justification, valid or not, for your comment. Perhaps you are outright lying and have no instance of bad faith in mind at all.

              Thus, there is nothing for me to defend myself against and it becomes an argument made in bad faith.

              In comparison, my pointed comment allows ikanreed plenty of opportunity to defend himself. And he knows who this accusation comes from and he can choose to bring it up at a later date or as part of some discussion of greater scope.

              There is precedence from the field of law. In most parts of the world, it is illegal to try someone in court without allowing them both the opportunity to defend themselves and the right to see and question the evidence against them.

              Thus, I demand that you present the evidence for your accusation or be damned! I will otherwise continue my long held policy of ignoring unsubstantiated accusations.

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:50PM (17 children)

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:50PM (#718823) Journal

            Oh, I get it. You took a quote where I highlighted exactly how conservatives constantly argue in bad faith, and got super offended that it was rude.

            Conservatives have a broke brain condition where they think they deserve to be respected as a precondition to being respectable.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:22AM (16 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:22AM (#719174) Journal
              I was tempted to brag at how easy it was to find examples where you've expressed irrational bias about these things, but I see it's even easier than I could possibly conceive with you eagerly providing more such examples on demand. Kinda boring actually.
              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday August 09 2018, @02:03PM (15 children)

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 09 2018, @02:03PM (#719371) Journal

                "Irrational bias" means "bias lacking justification"

                If you really wanted to show that you should've cut off the part where I explained why, or given some sort of demonstration of why they "why" was lacking in reason. As it stands you just seem angry about being disrespected. I'm absolutely biased against republicans after decades of never seeing you guys make a sincere point where you actually value the pretense under which you make it.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 10 2018, @04:19AM (14 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 10 2018, @04:19AM (#719782) Journal

                  "Irrational bias" means "bias lacking rational justification"

                  FTFY. I think we're done here.

                  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday August 10 2018, @01:49PM (13 children)

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 10 2018, @01:49PM (#719900) Journal

                    "Aha! With this trivial rewording that doesn't actually change your intent or point I, master wordsmith, have proven my point in a way that's clear to no one else in the world. I certainly don't need to follow up and address what you actually said"

                    In fact, I'd say more than anything, you've reinforced that you do exactly what I accuse your political allies of doing non-stop. Muddying on irrelevant technicalities without even a half-assed nod towards addressing the central point. You, in particular, are a intellectually dishonest asshole who doesn't care about the real value of what you're saying one bit.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 11 2018, @03:10AM (12 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 11 2018, @03:10AM (#720180) Journal

                      With this trivial rewording that doesn't actually change your intent or point

                      Look up flat Earth arguments some time. They give plenty of justifications why they believe the world is flat. By your definition, that means their bias is rational. Oops. By my definition, no matter how much quantity of irrational justification, it's still not rational bias.

                      In fact, I'd say more than anything, you've reinforced that you do exactly what I accuse your political allies of doing non-stop. Muddying on irrelevant technicalities without even a half-assed nod towards addressing the central point. You, in particular, are a intellectually dishonest asshole who doesn't care about the real value of what you're saying one bit.

                      What central point? You've just been mouthing off for years. There's nothing there to half-ass nod at.

                      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday August 11 2018, @02:55PM (11 children)

                        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 11 2018, @02:55PM (#720310) Journal

                        So here's the "never acknowledge a point has been made" thing I was talking about that makes you such an insufferable ass.

                        You get mendaciously into the weeds of your own grievances of being called the goddamn stupid asshole you are, that you yourself forget what it was I actually said and then blame me for your own refusal to read.

                        You know the favorite game of kinda scummy people who are really invested in "center right" politics, who will go "You know, politifact(WHO HAS A LEFT WING BIAS RABBEL) rated 2 things Barack Obama said as pants on fire" so you can't trust left wing politicians at all either.

                        And you can either play their game of acknowledging that they're technically correct and have an underlying point, that liberal and left politicians lie, and fairly often. Then they're right and justified in voting for the heel who basically without remorse fucks as many of us as possible. Or you can disagree on the scope and scale and scale of the problem, and then they take a deluge of right wing talking points disconnected from context and give you a mudball of a conversation, and no goalposts where they acknowledge a point has been made.

                        Do you remember this? This is the point you didn't address.

                        And what's amazing is you're gonna go off and refuse to acknowledge I just now made a point because I was 100% right about how you argue. You're either gonna pedantically argue some irrelevancy of my post without acknowledging just how directly it answered your question, that you never asked with any sincerity or restate your original goddamn "point" about how aggrieved you are. It's not that you can't up and declare me right, because I understand no one does that. It's that you have some psychological block where you won't even acknowledge that a point has been made at all.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:49AM (10 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:49AM (#720411) Journal

                          So here's the "never acknowledge a point has been made" thing I was talking about that makes you such an insufferable ass.

                          Thank you. I try. Let us keep in mind my role in this discussion as the insufferable ass is not to prop up your candy ass.

                          You know the favorite game of kinda scummy people who are really invested in "center right" politics, who will go "You know, politifact(WHO HAS A LEFT WING BIAS RABBEL) rated 2 things Barack Obama said as pants on fire" so you can't trust left wing politicians at all either.

                          And you can either play their game of acknowledging that they're technically correct and have an underlying point, that liberal and left politicians lie, and fairly often. Then they're right and justified in voting for the heel who basically without remorse fucks as many of us as possible. Or you can disagree on the scope and scale and scale of the problem, and then they take a deluge of right wing talking points disconnected from context and give you a mudball of a conversation, and no goalposts where they acknowledge a point has been made.

                          Do you remember this? This is the point you didn't address.

                          There was no point there to address. You whine about an imaginary straw man, the "scummy people who are really invested in 'center right' politics". I can't even begin to be bothered about what that was code for. Then you don't go anywhere with that.

                          And look at the beginning of the second paragraph. Once you get into the ideological fever swamp where you can't acknowledge correct statements by your foes, then you're useless. It's not like Obama wasn't a serial liar either. After all, he came up with the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" lie (which let us note became the Lie of the Year in 2013 on Politifact!). Why get in a losing position where you have to defend the indefensible? As you have repeatedly noted, I don't have that problem.

                          And what's amazing is you're gonna go off and refuse to acknowledge I just now made a point because I was 100% right about how you argue.

                          You got it and yet you still did it. It's amazing to see you in operation here. You put your foot in your mouth and it didn't work for you. Now you're going to gnaw harder on that foot. It's gotta work! Gnaw furiously oh great one!

                          Sorry, when you make poorly thought-out stereotypes about imaginary classes of people, you don't have a point.

                          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 13 2018, @04:28PM (9 children)

                            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 13 2018, @04:28PM (#721028) Journal

                            And you literally did everything I ascribed to you, without a goddamn hint of self awareness. Literally every goddamn thing. Down to the fucking minutea of exactly how you "well actually" on trivial points. Of course Obama lied(as I said he did) though your example is(as I said) "not comparable in scope or scale" for reasons you will never acknowledge and I don't want to deal with the fake-ass "mudball" (as I described above) you're gonna make over it*.

                            This is why people disrespect your "imaginary class" of people. Because you're universally, without exception, shitheads who all seemingly behave exactly alike. In truth, I've been around this block enough to know how this goes: you'll remain offended at my rudeness, you'll never think twice about the words I've said. You'll pedantically argue with some almost irrelevant supporting detail of this post(hint: the thesis is that you are presently doing the thing I've accused your group of doing), and life will continue with you being a shithead, and being mad at me for saying so

                            *You won't care, but in context he implied that then-current health plans that didn't meet the new minimum criteria of the law would be allowed to continue as long as both parties renewed it. This was encoded into law, but many insurance agencies canceled the existing plans to standardize to one(or three) plans. You know as well as I do that there's a tacit difference between failing to accurately completely describe all possibilities(even knowingly) and lying. This is a point you will never acknowledge because, as I have alleged, you have a fundamental and intractable intellectual dishonesty.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 14 2018, @09:28AM (8 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 14 2018, @09:28AM (#721299) Journal

                              And you literally did everything I ascribed to you, without a goddamn hint of self awareness.

                              Why would a "self-aware" person act any different?

                              What I see going on is a bigot whining about straw men again. We just don't have enough of that on the internets.

                              Because you're universally, without exception, shitheads who all seemingly behave exactly alike.

                              I'm not a member of the Right or a conservative. So what group are you speaking of? Hmmm?

                              You won't care, but in context he implied that then-current health plans that didn't meet the new minimum criteria of the law would be allowed to continue as long as both parties renewed it.

                              Bullshit excuse after the fact. No such context existed at the time of the speech.

                              This is a point you will never acknowledge because, as I have alleged, you have a fundamental and intractable intellectual dishonesty.

                              Says the person carrying water for Obama's lies.

                              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 14 2018, @02:04PM (7 children)

                                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 14 2018, @02:04PM (#721367) Journal

                                Well, I pretended you'd eventually argue in good faith long enough. Thank you for confirming my biases.

                                (Also I laugh my ass off every time at "libertarians" who think they're not part of the right)

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 14 2018, @04:34PM (6 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 14 2018, @04:34PM (#721413) Journal

                                  Well, I pretended you'd eventually argue in good faith long enough. Thank you for confirming my biases.

                                  My take is that I would have confirmed your biases no matter what I wrote. After all, you went into this already "knowing" what shenanigans I was supposedly going to do.

                                  (Also I laugh my ass off every time at "libertarians" who think they're not part of the right)

                                  Too bad. Libertarians are one of the most liberal groups out there - liberal as in advocators for freedom. To get lumped in with "conservatives" in some blob called the "Right" is a disservice to your brain.

                                  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 14 2018, @06:40PM (5 children)

                                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 14 2018, @06:40PM (#721474) Journal

                                    I've tossed around several replies to this post in my head. There's no good way to respond to someone feeling like I don't respect their dignity.

                                    But of course I wouldn't confirm my biases no matter what you said. Those biases were very specific. It's easy to assume I would, because bad faith argumentation is everywhere in the world. To confirm my biases, the ones I laid out, in front of you before you even started posting this hellthread, you'd have to argue some pedantic point through semantics and never acknowledge the core idea for what it was. You did exactly that.

                                    Look, I get it. You have your reasons, and no one's ever forced to acknowledge a point has meaning. It feels like making the other person, who is brash, rude, and having a deleterious ideology towards yours, right. I don't need to be right, but I do need to deal with people honest enough to go "You know, Trump outright makes shit up daily, and that's pretty different from being wrong about the real world outcomes of a healthcare bill." That doesn't make Obama good. That doesn't make Obama a pillar of honesty. It doesn't make me right about everything, but it's really hard to deal with just how many of you people do exactly this.

                                    (Also, no. No libertarian has ever done anything for freedom, ever, unless you a priori buy into the fundamentals of their, yes, far-right ideology about money and property representing freedom in some foundational way, which just as often impede freedom in a more philosophical and human sense.)

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 15 2018, @12:43PM (4 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 15 2018, @12:43PM (#721750) Journal

                                      But of course I wouldn't confirm my biases no matter what you said. Those biases were very specific. It's easy to assume I would, because bad faith argumentation is everywhere in the world. To confirm my biases, the ones I laid out, in front of you before you even started posting this hellthread, you'd have to argue some pedantic point through semantics and never acknowledge the core idea for what it was. You did exactly that.

                                      Again, you have yet to make any such point. First, we still don't know what group you're even speaking of (labels in the absence of any sort of criteria are useless, hint hint) or why they're supposed to be arguing in bad faith. Then you've run your mouth for a half dozen or so posts without actually saying anything. I get the impression you disagree with me about something, but not what that is supposed to be.

                                      (Also, no. No libertarian has ever done anything for freedom, ever,

                                      Let's look at what you refuse to see. Libertarians oppose (a non-inclusive list):

                                      • NSA whole sale spying and the FISA court (which let us note Obama didn't oppose! original reason I stopped backing Obama in the first place)
                                      • Tariffs and other economic manipulation by governments - more on the latter below
                                      • Forcing people to make speech that is against their religious convictions and criminalizing speech (such as "hate speech" laws).
                                      • Asset seizure laws.
                                      • The use of state power to crack on mostly harmless behavior that someone deems immoral (such as kids playing outside unattended, prostitution, gambling, smoking dope, amateur scientific research, reading certain books or listening to certain music, belonging to certain religions, and being the wrong ethnicity in the wrong place at the wrong time).
                                      • The use of regulation to force behavioral changes (sin taxes, bans on various sorts of toilets, light bulbs, plastic straws, etc).
                                      • profoundly stupid economic regulation (that typically hurts the people it's supposed to help, reduces employment, worsens our lives, and strongly encourages formation of large multinational businesses).
                                      • Huge spending in military and social policy.

                                      Now some can and do disagree about inclusion of various items on this list. But this list exists in the first place because we're not collectively doing enough to prevent this loss of freedom. At least libertarians are doing something.

                                      unless you a priori buy into the fundamentals of their, yes, far-right ideology about money and property representing freedom in some foundational way, which just as often impede freedom in a more philosophical and human sense.)

                                      Now we get into the Orwellian war is peace stuff. This alleged "far-right" ideology has one of the most liberal and non-conservative policy out there concerning money and property. And the rest of the libertarian philosophy such as backing democracy and freedom has little to do with much of the far-right agenda, such as it is.

                                      And what is the claim about "impeding freedom in a more philosophical and human sense"? Why is that something that should matter? Such fluff is typical of the counterarguments. People mouth off [soylentnews.org] about how monopolies and oligopolies are end states of "free markets" while ignoring that these are often even more the end states of the supposed cures to free markets' problems. We're not better off that most developed world countries have state institutions dominating such things as peoples' pensions, health care, and education. We're not better off that our heavy (and still growing) regulatory burden encourages the growth of large corporations (and the oligopolies that we supposedly care about preventing). We're not better off that a half century or more of allegedly pro-labor or pro-poor social policy hasn't and never will yield the advertised results.

                                      Instead, we're better off because we let people do their own thing.

                                      but I do need to deal with people honest enough to go "You know, Trump outright makes shit up daily, and that's pretty different from being wrong about the real world outcomes of a healthcare bill."

                                      It's a far less egregious case of lying for starters. Obama's lie hurt tens of millions of people. Trump's tweet lies hurt mostly Trump's reputation.

                                      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 15 2018, @02:23PM (3 children)

                                        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 15 2018, @02:23PM (#721782) Journal

                                        It's a far less egregious case of lying for starters. Obama's lie hurt tens of millions of people. Trump's tweet lies hurt mostly Trump's reputation.

                                        Yeah, I'm sure completely untrue merit lies about putting children literally innocent of any crime into fucking 8x8ft dog cages, where some die of preventable illnesses because no one was paying attention because their parents were illegal immigrants, and publicly claiming not days before it came out that they all were given foster homes and good schools ("or something") is just as bad as your maliciously misreading a statement to make it wrong.

                                        You scum fucking dishonest fuck. You complete horseshit of a human being. Don't bother to tell me, I know you don't personally approve of the concentration camps that you knowingly voted for.

                                        Fuck you. Fuck everything about your ideology. Fuck you as a human being. The world deserves better than you.

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:03AM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:03AM (#722033) Journal

                                          Yeah, I'm sure completely untrue merit lies about putting children literally innocent of any crime into fucking 8x8ft dog cages, where some die of preventable illnesses because no one was paying attention because their parents were illegal immigrants, and publicly claiming not days before it came out that they all were given foster homes and good schools ("or something") is just as bad as your maliciously misreading a statement to make it wrong.

                                          As I noted before, Obama's lies hurt a lot of people. Trump's lie here hurt himself. The children weren't imprisoned even a day longer by those Tweet lies.

                                          You scum fucking dishonest fuck. You complete horseshit of a human being. Don't bother to tell me, I know you don't personally approve of the concentration camps that you knowingly voted for.

                                          That in a nutshell is your problem not mine. How much more ugliness will we find when we peel you back even further?

                                          Fuck you. Fuck everything about your ideology. Fuck you as a human being. The world deserves better than you

                                          Called it.

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:35PM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:35PM (#722145) Journal
                                          To continue on the subject, here's what PolitiFact had to say [politifact.com] on the matter:

                                          But what really set everyone off was when Obama tried to rewrite his slogan, telling political supporters on Nov. 4, "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed."

                                          Pants on Fire! PolitiFact counted 37 times when he’d included no caveats, such as a high-profile speech to the American Medical Association in 2009: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

                                          That was over a several year period. Let us also keep in mind that it wasn't a mystery that such changes in health care plans would have come, just due to the large changes in the cost of such health insurance. Changes and dropping health care plans would be a typical and easily foreseeable consequence of law that raises the price and liabilities of health insurance.

                                          And Obama didn't throw this out on Twitter one dark night, but repeatedly made the claim over several years in many public speeches. Then when the original statement became untenable to continue, claimed he didn't really mean it. As to the tweet(s), I think SN commenter, theluggage has a sound take [soylentnews.org] on the value of Twitter speech:

                                          Ah, Twitter - all those stupid things human beings say when they're drunk, stoned, upset, lonely or just plain bored - once forgotten by the morning after, now recorded, preserved for posterity, made available to all and mistaken by journalists as a source of news.

                                          [...]

                                          What's really frightening is the degree of seriousness that some people apply to tweets (buying/selling shares, voting for orange people, etc.)

                                          Finally, if you're having trouble with people quoting PolitiFact in order to defend the Orange One, perhaps you could instead acknowledge the truth of the observation and continue with your own, namely that a certain other US president has obtained Lie of the Year status for the last three years (and probably will have a lock on the thing for the rest of his tenure as president). But I suppose debate requires thinking and that's hard for you, right?

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:47PM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:47PM (#722152) Journal
                                          As a final remark, notice how your sole concrete example of the nefarious bad faith you're supposedly arguing against ended up with you creating this rhetorical cliff and then diving off of it. You shifted from the original argument to you voluntarily defending some pretty egregious lies as not lies. That's yet more supporting evidence for my claim that the sole common factor is you. You didn't have to do that. But even if you did, you didn't have to do it in a way that was guaranteed to lose.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:15PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:15PM (#718355)

        For what its worth, a lot of people simply do not understand narcissism and sociopathy. These are related, incurable, mental conditions that exist on a spectrum.

        People with extreme cases of these disorders have a very consistent way of interacting with others - if the truth supports their goals, they speak the truth. If lies will support their goals, then they tell lies. If praising someone will get them what they want, then they praise. If threatening someone will get them what they want, then they threaten. If bribery will get them what they want, then they bribe. If gaslighting will get them what they want, then they will gaslight. All successes are due to their brilliance and hard work, all failures are the result of enemies working to undermine them.

        The one constant is that everything they do and say is in service to themselves, if anyone else benefits from their actions that's just a side-effect (which they will use to "prove" how kind and generous they are.) Their tactics can and will change on a dime as circumstances dictate because the only principle their brains can even conceive of is getting what they want.

        Furthermore, because they operate that way, they expect everyone else to operate that way too. They do not respect, or even understand concepts of altruism, fairness, and morality. Instead they treat them as a weakness to be exploited. One key thing to know is that while they hate to be caught and held accountable they absolutely delight in being caught and getting away with it. For most of them, its actually better to get caught and escape accountability than to have their actions go completely unnoticed. Getting away with their misdeeds in full view of the public is the ultimate power trip, its kind of like a drug for them.

        Dealing with narcissists in your personal life is extremely toxic, and if you don't know about how they operate it can be soul crushing. Even if you do know how they work, its still destructive as hell. Literally the only way to survive someone with NPD is to break off all contact because they are biochemically incapable of changing. If you want to read some first person accounts of people dealing with narcissists, the Raised By Narccissts reddit [reddit.com] has more stories than you could ever read. Be warned though, its nickname is "the saddest place on reddit" for good reason.

        A couple of things commonly associated with NPD:
        Flying Monkeys [wikipedia.org] these are people who buy into the Narc's alternate reality and as a result end up doing their bidding - often times they have NPD themselves, and yes the phenomenon is named after the flying monkeys in the wizard of Oz
        Golden Child [psychology2mind.com] Narc parents usually abuse and scapegoat their children just the way they would any one else, but its common for them to have a favorite who gets the reverse treatment who can do no wrong - they put the golden child up on a pedestal, constantly praise them no matter how undeserving and give them special treatment and privileges that no one else gets. Not only does that damage the other children, it also warps the golden child into having a super-sized ego and delusions of competence.

        • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @08:46PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @08:46PM (#718431)

          The Narcissist’s Prayer

          That didn’t happen.

          And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

          And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

          And if it is, that’s not my fault.

          And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

          And if I did…

          You deserved it.

          • (Score: 5, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:02PM

            by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:02PM (#718493) Journal

            In bed.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 22 2018, @07:28PM

            by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday August 22 2018, @07:28PM (#724818)

            Today's example:

                      President Trump, in his first comments on Michael Cohen's guilty plea, claimed payments to women shouldn’t be a campaign finance issue because “they didn’t come out of the campaign, they came from me."

                      Asked if he knew of the payments, he said: “Later on I knew. Later on. But you have to understand, what he did -- and they weren’t taken out of campaign finance, that’s the big thing. That’s a much bigger thing. Did they come out of the campaign? They didn’t come out of the campaign, they came from me. And I tweeted about it. You know, I put -- I don’t know if you know but I tweeted about the payments.

            ((( Hint: No, he was saying all along that he knew nothing, that he made no such deals, that it was all someone else. )))

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:54PM

          by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:54PM (#718881)

          >>> ... because they operate that way, they expect everyone else to operate that way too.

          This applies to many people from many positions. This is why the Old Testament maxim is "Do not do to others what is hateful to yourself", rather than the New Testament version "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As George Bernard Shaw put it, "Do not do unto others as you expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." But of course, EVEN CONSIDERING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WANT (rather than just what oneself wants) is a widely varying attribute.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:29AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:29AM (#719178) Journal

          For what its worth, a lot of people simply do not understand narcissism and sociopathy.

          Probably because most people have mild cases of these conditions. The conditions inherently limit one's ability to understand others.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:07PM (10 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:07PM (#718436)

        All I can say at this point is: At least Nixon had some class when he stepped down. I truly believe that Donny boy is going to fight to the bitter end, and lose.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:59AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:59AM (#718586) Journal

          Well, despite everything, no one has found Trump guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor. Why would he step down? Class. I suppose it's classy to hate on the man like you do.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:07AM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:07AM (#718590)

          He will lose. But he is going drag down as much of america, and the world, as he can trying to keep his head above water. He was shredding the intelligence agencies from day one because he was threatened by what they knew, he's been shredding the FBI because of what they can do to him, he's been shredding his appointees like Rosenstein and Sessions because they won't help him shred the FBI. He's working overtime to destroy public faith in news reporters because the truth will bury him.

          He's setting up Iran to justify starting a war with them - he surrounded himself with ultra-hawks on Iran - Pompeo and Bolton who would absolutely love to just nuke the entire country, killing tens of millions of people. But trump doesn't even care one way or the other about Iran, he just needs an excuse to wag the dog and he will fucking wag it as hard as possibly can before he will accept defeat.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:27AM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:27AM (#718604) Journal

            Yeah, I came to the same conclusion even before he was elected, i.e., "If he wins this election he's gonna fuck up everything, and he'll probably destroy the country on the way out." We are so screwed...

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:04AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:04AM (#718699)

              I have more faith in our fellow citizens who would have to carry out his insane orders. It could get bad, but I don't think it will go the way of the Nazis.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:02PM (#718780)

                I wish I could have that kind of faith. But the reality is that before Hitler and the Nazi machine Germans were just Germans. And even during the war there were voices of dissent who were suppressed.
                No, I fear very much that herd mentality and xenophobia are probably enough to allow ourselves to be pushed over the edge. But we'll probably settle on Latin Americans instead of the Jews.

          • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:59PM (3 children)

            by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:59PM (#718885)

            The problem, as you point out, is that he will use up or burn out or actively destroy anything. I always find it odd that people who call themselves "conservative" are often the first to "sell off the family silver" for short-term gain (e.g. privatize public assets, and use up resources that only exist because someone else specifically conserved them).

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 10 2018, @05:03AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 10 2018, @05:03AM (#719798) Journal

              I always find it odd that people who call themselves "conservative" are often the first to "sell off the family silver" for short-term gain (e.g. privatize public assets, and use up resources that only exist because someone else specifically conserved them).

              Those generalizations aren't always short-sighted. For example, Europe did quite well (and will continue to do so indefinitely) by privatizing its telecommunications and airline industries which in large part used to be public assets. Public assets frequently don't make sense in the long term because they're managed by people even more incompetent and short-sighted than the "next quarter" business person.

              Another example of such incompetence is the regulatory thrashing that frequently comes from tragedy of the commons scenarios where someone abuses a public asset, the regulators come up with new rules for dealing with the abuse, and then in a renewal of the cycle, the abusers come up with new ways to abuse. The end result is that the public asset becomes much less useful than it would be, if owned by a private entity, because of a mesh of rules and laws that obstruct legitimate use more than illegitimate abuse.

              As to resources that exist "only" because someone conserved them, it frequently doesn't make sense to conserve resources. For example, conserving resources merely to conserve them in the future (in other words, never actually using the resource ever, even as a possible emergency resource/insurance policy) is far less useful than using the resource today. Some resources are short lived. It doesn't make sense to grow oranges and then let them rot.

              In summary, it's a cool story bro, but reality is often different.

              • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 22 2018, @07:33PM (1 child)

                by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday August 22 2018, @07:33PM (#724823)

                True, it doesn't make sense to grow fruit and let it rot. OTOH I worked in an office building whose footprint (and parking lot) had been an orchard where I picked fruit less than 5 years earlier. Now NOBODY will get any fruit, probably forever, because it will never go back to being an orchard. I'm sure someone made much more money than selling fruit . . . once.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:40AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:40AM (#725050) Journal

                  Now NOBODY will get any fruit, probably forever, because it will never go back to being an orchard.

                  And that would be a big deal, if it weren't for the enormous acreage devoted to the growing of fruit.

                  I'm sure someone made much more money than selling fruit . . . once.

                  And the people who use such office space. They make much more money than selling fruit indefinitely.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:43AM

        by driverless (4770) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:43AM (#718611)

        During the election one of my friend's gf's was a massive Trump supporter and was all kinds of frustrated about how much we didn't trust him. You damn liberals wouldn't take a plate full of gold if Trump handed it to you. was something she would say in fact.

        My grandmother used to hand out plates of cookies. We trusted her because (a) she was my grandmother and (b) we'd just seen her bake them.

        Wouldn't trust Trump though.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:13PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:13PM (#718387)

      I believe he's at least partly delusional. Sane liars keep most of their stories consistent over time. He changes stories faster than he consumes KFC, with little regard for historical coherence. He seems to believe his own delusions. It's scary that we probably have a Class A nutcase in charge.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:46PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:46PM (#718412)

        It's scary that we probably have a Class A nutcase in charge.

        Yes, but what's scarier is that we apparently have a bunch of Americans who gleefully buy into his delusions. Scary, indeed.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:04PM (8 children)

          by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:04PM (#718496) Journal

          What's REALLY scary is that after corruptly stealing resources and funds from Bernie, they still pushed Hillary out as a class act.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:33AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:33AM (#718539)

            2 wrongs don't make a right.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:53AM

              by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:53AM (#718583) Journal

              No: dumping Hillary and going with Bernie would have made it right.

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:36AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:36AM (#718631)

            What's REALLY scary is that after corruptly stealing resources and funds from Bernie, they still pushed Hillary out as a class act.

            Oh shut the fuck up.

            Bernie's campaign hacked the clinton campaign. [wpsdlocal6.com]

            Bernie's campaign manager, Tad Devine, was buds with the same russians as Manafort. Here's a photo of Devine and Konstantin Klimink [usnews.com] the GRU officer assigned to Manafort.

            Under Devine's direction the Sanders Campaign made some 'odd' spending decisions. Among them, they chose to dramatically outspend Hillary in New York despite:

            1) Clinton being a massive, popular favorite in the state
            2) The insanely high media rates for advertising in NY

            It was the most expensive advertising you could buy with the least likely benefit.

            Meaning, whoever planned that media was getting a piece of the action; knew the campaign could afford it; and chose to overspend there to rake in easy commissions on big-ticket spend.

            Advertising heavily in New York didn't help Sanders. He lost NY by 16 pts and 300k votes (a margin larger than around 15 of his primary wins combined).

            The heavy rotation 'dirtied up' Clinton though... which wasn't bad for Trump.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:33AM (2 children)

              by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:33AM (#718721) Journal

              YOU shut the fuck up. The link at the bottom of your article explains the situation and shows it was Wasserman-Schultz fucking with Bernie's campaign.

              As for your second link, anyone can play that game:
              https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html [nytimes.com]

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:34PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:34PM (#718815)

                The link at the bottom of your article explains the situation and shows it was Wasserman-Schultz fucking with Bernie's campaign.

                Yeah,. that's not what it says.

                As for your second link, anyone can play that game:

                1. Clinton Foundation, not Clinton Campaign
                2. Anyone citing the uranium one is a tool of the gang of putin
                3. If your best defense is "clinton is the same as bernie" that's not actually an argument for bernie

                • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:53PM

                  by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:53PM (#719088) Journal

                  Yeah, it says exactly that, and
                  1.Clinton's are Clinton's, no matter where the money goes it still is a bribe to her.
                  2. Don't be a complete asshole.
                  3. I say nothing about Hillary being ANYWHERE near as good as Bernie. Again, don't be an asshole.

                  --
                  --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:01PM (1 child)

            by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:01PM (#718887)

            What's really scary is that I know people who wrote in Bernie rather than vote for Hillary against Trump. Maybe that didn't matter in my state, but "making a statement" sometimes makes the statement "I don't know how elections work."

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:14PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:14PM (#718892)

              A LOT of what happened with 2016 can be blamed on everybody thinking that Hillary was going to win and thus using her as a punching bag to boost their own bona fides.

              The press thought she was going to win, so they spent 100x more effort chasing that breitbart published "Clinton Cash" propaganda than they did on Trump's 30+ year public record of towering corruption.

              The GOP thought she was going to win so they embraced trump in order to keep the most despicable part of their base voting in down ballot elections.

              The sanders wing thought she was going to win so they were content to let the slurs against her go unchallenged.

              Comey thought she was going to win so he took every opportunity to dunk on her in order to bolster the reputation of the FBI.

              Obama thought she was going to win so his administration didn't do enough to fight putin's attacks.

              But turns out that when everybody just thinks something is going to happen but doesn't work to make it happen, it doesn't actually happen.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:12AM (#718624)

          Yes, but what's scarier is that we apparently have a bunch of Americans who gleefully buy into his delusions. Scary, indeed.

          Trump is not the cause, he is the symptom of a decades long campaign to cultivate those people. When trump goes down, those assholes will still be around and there is a good chance they will be insane with anger at seeing Donald Jesus Trump crucified for his sins.

          But do not be complacent, trump will only be checked if we the people work to check him. The upcoming congressional elections could easily be our last chance to turn away from the brink of permanent authoritarianism. The GOP will never stand up for democracy. Trump's packing the courts with toadies and sycophants who won't hold him accountable either. If we can't fix congress soon, all that will be left is for demonstrations in the streets and if that is what it comes too, many of the protestors will end up dying with jackboots on their necks.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:03PM (#718434)

        He doesn't care about consistency because he's not trying to persuade anyone. All he's doing is giving people who want to believe him an excuse they can use to avoid confronting the truth. His lies shield his cultists from hard facts, but if you aren't in the cult then he doesn't care what you think.

        Remember that old line:

        You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

        Trump's target audience is the group of people he can fool all of the time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:47AM (#718682)

      The meeting in Trump tower was to talk about their kids. Trump is just too embarrassed to admit it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:00AM (#718689)

      Wasn't this the same Russian diplomat that the Obama admin expedited their entry? Sounds like Barry tried to setup a trap but someone didn't take the bait.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:17PM (51 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:17PM (#718320)

    This was in that house report months ago. Some russian bigmouth guy promised some sort of info on clinton but then showed up and wanted to talk about some bill noone cared about instead. Heres the report from nyt:
    https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180427%20Intelligence%20Committee%20Report.pdf?authuser=1 [nyt.com]

    Ive been following this via the gov reports and skipping the news, are they really 4 months behind? And getting it wrong, since what they said earlier was not far different, just precise in a weasely way. They did meet to get the info, but then there was no discussion of it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:23PM (#718323)

      And I mean sorry but 4 months late and wrong news is ________.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:41PM (38 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:41PM (#718365)

      Ive been following this via the gov reports and skipping the news,

      Well then, you should follow the news because the House Intelligence Committee is so dysfunctional that nothing being officially reported out of there is well researched. The people running that committee have been using it to provide disinformation, not information. For example, they refused to interview Maria Butina, the red-haired Russian spy [mic.com] who was sexing up the GOP, [foxnews.com] the NRA [heavy.com] and the National Prayer Breakfast [religionnews.com] and dating the #2 national security guy on trump's campaign, [usatoday.com] J.D. Gordon, he's the one who changed the GOP platform on Ukraine to be more russia friendly. [businessinsider.com] All of that they deliberately avoided interviewing her. Kinda weird, huh?

      They did meet to get the info, but then there was no discussion of it.

      No, that's just one of many lies that DJT Jr told the House committee, lies that the people running the committee had no interest in double-checking. If they didn't do anything illegal in that meeting, then why all the changing stories about the meeting? People don't lie when they have nothing to hide. Its super suspicious, super colludey.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:55PM (37 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:55PM (#718373)

        What changing stories? The only changing stories Ive seen are in headlines like this one. The news changes their understanding and tries to put the earlier confusion on someone else. Of course this "we didnt talk about it" thing could be made up, but that doesnt mean the story has changed at this point. What evidence do you have they talked about something else?

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:28PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:28PM (#718401)

          > What changing stories? The only changing stories Ive seen are in headlines

          WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD READ PAST THE HEADLINES DUMBASS

          November 11, 2016
          Hope Hicks, then-spokesperson for Trump's campaign, told The Associated Press [apnews.com] there was no contact between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives.
          "It never happened," Hicks told The AP. "There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign."

          _______________________________________________

          January 15, 2017
          Mike Pence issued a blanket denial to Chris Wallace on Fox News.

          Wallace: "I'm asking a direct question: Was there any contact in any way between Trump or his associates and the Kremlin or contacts they had?"
          Pence: "I joined this campaign in the summer, and I can tell you that all the contact by the Trump campaign and associates was with the American people. We were fully engaged with taking his message to make America great again all across this country. That's why he won in a landslide election."
          Wallace: "... if there were any contacts, sir, I'm just trying to get an answer."
          Pence: "Yes. I -- of course not. Why would there be any contacts between the campaign? Chris, the -- this is all a distraction, and it's all part of a narrative to delegitimize the election and to question the legitimacy of this presidency. The American people see right through it."
          Pence later repeated that "of course" there had not been contact between the Trump campaign and Russia in an interview with CBS' Dickerson.

          _______________________________________________

          March 2017
          Trump Jr. denies setting up any meetings with Russian nationals for campaign purposes

          In an interview with the New York Times, [nytimes.com] Trump Jr. denied that he had participated in any meetings with Russians relating to the presidential campaign.

          “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did,” he told the Times. “But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.

          _______________________________________________

          What evidence do you have they talked about something else?

          The fact that they lied about the meeting is strong evidence that the meeting was actually productive. They are WAY past the point of getting the benefit of the doubt now.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:29PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:29PM (#718476)

            So it says they didnt meet with any "foreign entitities" and "the kremlin or contacts" but they did meet with russian people. How is this inconsistent? Is there any reason they thought the russians they were talking to were one of the excluded groups?

            I mean your story has an obvious hole in it.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:48PM (3 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:48PM (#718516) Journal

              Let me lay that out for you. They met with entities (people are entities) and those entities were Russian. So he met with Russian Entities. Russians are NOT Americans.

              It's sad when Captain Obvious is actually called for.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:12AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:12AM (#718525)

                He clearly says he met with russian people in the one quote. So whatever, continue reading incorrectly into these tactically chosen phrases all you want, there was no changing of the story presented here. If you want to say "entities are people, gotcha!", that will be your own personal problem.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:30AM (1 child)

                  by sjames (2882) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:30AM (#718536) Journal

                  So your argument is that I have a problem because you agree with me?!?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:37AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @12:37AM (#718541)

                    Well troll certainly don't get into arguments to broaden their own perspective.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:24AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:24AM (#718556)

              Is there any reason they thought the russians they were talking to were one of the excluded groups?

              When DJTjr went full Fredo and just tweeted out the emails about setting up the meeting, [theguardian.com] he proved that he was literally told that he was meeting with "the crown prosecutor of Russia” who was there to provide the trump campaign with "very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump."

              I mean your story has an obvious hole in it.

              You are an obvious hole

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:21AM (#718602)

                So you are saying they met with the crown prosecutor of russia? Or now that meeting with someone who was told something by another person is the same as meeting with the "other person"?

                Its still a consistent story with precise and weasely wording by the trump campaign.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:42PM (2 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:42PM (#718408) Journal

          What changing stories?

          "Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she's given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her." Donald J Trump, March 28, 2012 episode of "On the Record," a Fox News program

          On a serious note, here's a pretty good compilation of the lies that have gotten us here. [npr.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:42PM (#718483)

            Ok, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I mean really? Thats your evidence of russian collusion? No one outside the echo chamber is going to think this type of thing works out in Trumps disfavor.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:55PM (#718490)

            Remember, that was when President Trump was still a Democrat (which he was for most his life).

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @08:35PM (25 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @08:35PM (#718430)

          What evidence do you have they talked about something else?

          The fact that, as soon as trump was in office, the very first thing he did was try really hard to give Putin what he asked for at the meeting.

          DJTjr's first official statement specifically about the meeting [weeklystandard.com] was:

          "We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government"

          "Adoptions" is russia-speak for "sanctions relief" because the adoption program was cancelled by Putin as a foot-stamping response to the Magnitsky act sanctions against russian oligarchs. [businessinsider.com]

          Trump's first move after the inauguration was to secretly start trying to lift that Magnitsky sanctions without getting any concession from Russia in return. [thehill.com]

          Furthermore, the trump administration has done everything it possibly can to neuter [reuters.com] the new sanctions [nytimes.com] that congress passed on a nearly unanimous vote. [cnn.com]

          So, we have clear and obvious evidence of the Quo that Putin was asking for at that meeting.
          Do you think Mr "Art of the Deal" is just going to give away the Quo without getting the Quid he was offered first?

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:38PM (#718479)

            Trump said he wanted to improve relations with russia publically during the campaign. Looks like he tried to do that because he wasnt part of whatever secret backroom deal gone wrong between Russia and the Obama administration. There is no need to think that has anything to do with the meeting in question.

            This whole thing has to be fake. All I see is some zero evidence wild speculations most useful to drown out any real criticism of trump. This is so crazy, I warned everyone on here that Trump was going to win because of this behaviour well before the election, but the same people seem to be doubling down!!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:29AM (#718558)

              Trump said he wanted to improve relations with russia publically during the campaign. Looks like he tried to do that

              Giving up your strongest cards without even getting a promise of anything in return is not "improving relations" its surrendering.

              That pathetic, whiny little loser sold out america and he did it right god damn in front us.

              This whole thing has to be fake.

              You have to be fake.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:07AM (22 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:07AM (#718589) Journal

            So, those high profile stories of deaths of adopted Russian children had absolutely NOTHING to do with the cancelation of foreign adoptions of Russian children. Got it.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:10AM (21 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:10AM (#718595)

              Despite your snark, you are correct. Its called a pretext.
              But you are one of those antipatriots who thinks its better to be a russian than it is to be a democrat. So enjoy the comforting salve of that pretext.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:20AM (20 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:20AM (#718601) Journal

                More accurately, it's better to be Russian or Chinese than to be a progressive. There are still some good Democrats left. If I were to estimate how many, I'd give some number slightly over 50% of all registered Dems. It's the LEADERSHIP that truly sucks ass, not so much the rank and file.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:31AM (16 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:31AM (#718607) Journal

                  So you wanted Bernie instead of Hillary but being a progressive is worse than being a damn commie...what the fuck. Go to bed, old man, you're Alzheimering all over the thread again.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:42AM (13 children)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:42AM (#718610) Journal

                    You're getting senile. No, I didn't want Bernie. Bernie was by far the lesser of two evils competing for the Democratic nomination. And, apparently, Democrats saw the same thing. But, Hillary and her corrupt supporters stabbed Bernie in the back.

                    In your mind, is it necessary that I like a person to recognize that he has been served an injustice? Wow - I wonder what that would do to our legal system? First you have to win a popularity contest, THEN you have a chance of winning your legal case.

                    Your senility has also allowed you to forget that I work at nights. I just got out of bed a couple hours ago. In twenty minutes, I'll be headed to work.

                    Now, you run along, and take your own advice. Get some sleep, and prepare yourself for another tough day tomorrow.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:21AM (12 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:21AM (#718625) Journal

                      You don't do so well in the morning (night) either it seems. "I know you are but what am I?" hasn't worked since first grade, and doubly so when you're talking to someone at least 20 or 30 years younger than you when the issue at hand is the onset of dementia. Are you *sure* you work at night, or even at all, or are you just wandering around the neighborhood in slippers and shorts swearing at lampposts and trash bins?

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:08PM (11 children)

                        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:08PM (#718784) Journal

                        If I should live to be 120, I'll still be sharper and wittier than you ever were. You need to accept that, with your 92nd percentile bullshit.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:19PM (10 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:19PM (#718834)

                          If I should live to be 120, I'll still be sharper and wittier than you ever were. You need to accept that

                          Its funny how losers like you puff themselves up with meaningless drivel like that. Its like a circular mental disorder where the lamer you are, the more you feel like you can prove you aren't lame by acting lame.

                          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:46PM (9 children)

                            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:46PM (#718849) Journal

                            Nahhhhh - it's just fun kicking 'Zumi because she's the one who bragged about 92nd percentile. Like - that's really something, huh? My parents got a letter, informing them that the test only ranks to the 99th percentile, and that I should be evaluated for accelerated education, blah blah blah.

                            Now, TBH, 92nd isn't bad. But, some chick who feels the need to brag on it? She needs to be kicked around some. This is the same chick who was 6 feet tall, until she wasn't.

                            Losers like me? You've never met a loser like me. I'm a winner, always. That's one of the benefits of being a veteran. And male. And hetero. And Christian. And white. I can't lose!

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:49PM (8 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:49PM (#718852)

                              I'm a winner, always.

                              Lol, your self-owns are so fucking amazing.

                              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:04PM (7 children)

                                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:04PM (#718858) Journal

                                Could it be that I'm just talking over your head? Remember when you were really little, and the adults would talk, talk, talk - and none of it made sense? Maybe you're in just such a position today.

                                More serious question: How many members here do you think are NOT 90th percentile, or higher? I mean, this is Soylent - not Facefook or Twitworld or some such.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:29PM (6 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:29PM (#718869)

                                  Could it be that I'm just talking over your head?

                                  You are duning krueger personified. Let me explain it to you at your level - you think you are hot snot on a gold platter when are really gold boogers on a paper plate.

                                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:23PM (5 children)

                                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:23PM (#718896) Journal

                                    Whatever lets you sleep at night.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:37PM (4 children)

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:37PM (#718905)

                                      So many people have said that you that you now think it means something if you parrot it.

                                      Another unintentional self-own when you thought you were being cool and sardonic. Its the compulsion of a weak, diseased ego. You just can't help yourself.

                                      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:47PM (3 children)

                                        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:47PM (#718980) Journal

                                        I'm beginning to think AC is just Zumi flapping her gums. Whether that be so or not - you just can't stand it. I am, and that is enough to perturb you. You can't change me, or influence me, so that perturbs you even more. It bothers you that I just don't give a damn about your feelings, or opinion, or whatever the fuck.

                                        Find a life. There's no future in yapping at me like a silly damned chihuahua.

                                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:53PM (1 child)

                                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:53PM (#718986)

                                          You can't change me, or influence me,

                                          The traitor brags about his amazing closed mind.

                                          The pathetic self-owns just won't stop. Ya can even open your mouth for a second without sucking on your own toes.

                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:37AM

                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:37AM (#719180) Journal

                                            You can't change me, or influence me,

                                            The traitor brags about his amazing closed mind.

                                            And you apparently brag about your inability to open a wet paper bag. I'll just note that retarded name calling doesn't seem to open peoples' minds.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 09 2018, @12:04AM

                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 09 2018, @12:04AM (#719127) Journal

                                          LOL, sorry, I don't post AC. Never did, never will, don't feel the need to. I do appreciate that there are other people taking time to point out what a complete doddering wreck of self-important delusions you are, though. Don't worry, you'll be dead inside of a decade at this rate.

                                          --
                                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:12PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:12PM (#718930)

                    being a progressive is worse than being a damn commie...

                    Russia isn't communist anymore. They've reverted to a sort of tsarist feudalism. And the US had a hand in that, when the wall came down and their society started to collapse we sent in the agents of unfettered capitalism and they did everything that the commies were afraid the west would do. The end result was the rise of the robber-baron oligarchs who just took state resources for themselves.

                    I don't know if we could have made a difference, but we certainly didn't try to help the country transition to a representative democracy, we just kinda assumed it would automatically happen because we have this dangerous myth that liberal order is self-assembling when the reality is that it is the exact opposite, it takes experience, skill, lots and lots of hard work and way too much luck. Its very much like the rise of ISIS after we kicked over Sadam's bureaucracy and couldn't be bothered to build anything in its place.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:57PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:57PM (#719121) Journal

                      Yeah, if Reagan were smart (and not already half-senile with Alzheimer's...) he'd have tried a sort of second Marshall Plan.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:40AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:40AM (#718632)

                  More accurately, it's better to be Russian or Chinese than to be a progressive.

                  You swore an oath. And here you are putting our enemies above your fellow countrymen. You god damn traitor.

                  You are a fucking disgrace.
                  Scum worse than Bergdhal. Never show your face around her again you shitstain, you're not even worthy of being a boot.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:24PM (10 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:24PM (#718397) Journal

      Some russian bigmouth guy promised some sort of info on clinton

      Which is a crime! Also, soliciting that information, in the form of accepting a meeting to discuss it, is also a crime.

      So your "meh" is an admission of two federal election crimes.

      I posted the statute in a different post. [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:33PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:33PM (#718405)

        As uber trump hater Strzok also said, collusion is not a crime.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:48PM (4 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:48PM (#718416) Journal

          As uber trump hater Strzok also said, collusion is not a crime.

          You're right, it's multiple crimes. [washingtonpost.com]

          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:25PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:25PM (#718473)

            No, thats not what he meant. And he was the one in charge of the investigation, who said he didnt want to waste any more time with it careerwise since "there was no there there". People have apparently come up with their own armchair legal advice to disagree with FBI and DoJ who public records show were investigating trump, totaly biased against him, but didnt think there was anything there. Read the actual reports by the people involved and listen to their testimony.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:49PM (1 child)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:49PM (#718517) Journal

              "there was no there there".

              Whelp, turns out the guy who was swiftly removed from the investigation due to a conflict of interest was wrong. "Cause we're "there" already and "there" keeps getting bigger every time a lie is exposed.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:47AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:47AM (#718733)

                swiftly removed from the investigation

                What? He wasnt swiftly removed, he decided he didnt want to do it. You need to go watch the Strzok hearing and read the OIG report on all this.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:55PM

              by sjames (2882) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:55PM (#718521) Journal

              If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:15AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:15AM (#718666) Journal

        Which is a crime! Also, soliciting that information, in the form of accepting a meeting to discuss it, is also a crime.

        Welp, you just turned this into a First Amendment issue. There is no exception for big mouth Russians or election campaigns. First Amendment trumps statutes.

        What I also think is remarkable about your post is that if this information really was the real deal, then the law would have suppressed a bit of vital information that the US public should have known about Clinton. It is remarkable that you would support this merely because of who or how that information was obtained.

        OR is that rather that you support this interpretation of law because of whose side you are on?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:23AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:23AM (#718670)

          Welp, you just turned this into a First Amendment issue. There is no exception for big mouth Russians or election campaigns. First Amendment trumps statutes.

          That would be false. The first amendment does not protect libel. It doesn't protect threats. It doesn't protect piracy. It doens't protect fraud. And it sure as fuck does not protect people soliciting a crime.

          you are such a fucken idiot

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:10AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:10AM (#718676) Journal

            The first amendment does not protect libel. It doesn't protect threats. It doesn't protect piracy. It doens't protect fraud. And it sure as fuck does not protect people soliciting a crime.

            None of those are relevant. In this scenario, the only thing that could be a crime was the solicitation and that was of speech from said big mouth Russian, and hence, a protected activity.

            Let us keep in mind that if we can just pass laws willy nilly to restrict speech, then the First Amendment which is supposed to have primacy over those laws means nothing. What else then can we just decide mean nothing?

            Finally, once again, this particular interpretation of law is merely a bit of faction positioning. It should be obvious to everyone that the US public have a legitimate interest in such information and thus, that just from a public interest standpoint, election campaigns should have wide leeway in trading for information on their opponents, including purchasing said information from foreign nationals. When one then adds the First Amendment aspect, that's that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:50AM (#718684)

        I wonder what paying a foreign agent in the UK to write a fake dossier is a crime for then. :-/

(1) 2