jesse

How is being offended by everything that Trump stands for somehow the same as supporting Bill Clinton. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton. I don't support Bill Clinton. I also voted for Hillary only because she was clearly the lesser of two evils. Obama did some extremely shitty/shady things as president. His justice apartment spied on AP journalists, he failed to get us out of a war he inherited, patriots like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden have been treated horribly, etc. Presidents always do shitty things, the nature of the job demands it, to some degree. But to elect a hideous person like Trump into this office is too much and I am genuinely afraid that he will continue to strip away our freedoms - this shit with the election commission, bringing back the emphasis on mandatory minimum sentences for minor crimes, etc. And that says nothing of the temperament issue he has (undeniable). It's embarrassing that he's representing America to the world and I do not understand the compulsion to blindly defend him. Also everyone knows how impeachment goes, right? Hillary doesn't somehow become president if he gets the boot. This isn't an attack on conservatism (we can have that debate, if you want) it's an objection to this particular man. Tax cuts for the rich, healthcare, the environment - those are issues that can be debated, this guy as "leader of the free world"? Come on.

Sorry, I posted this before but here it is again: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/ It seems like it's actually political science that race was the biggest factor for Trump voters. It's a tough thing to accept I guess, but there it is. Also not to quibble too much, but it's a little disingenuous to say the left lost "big," what with the whole popular vote thing.

No, strictly a stuttering commentary on the Comey firing.

Yeah, so ... umm ... yeah. This is, well ... umm ... yeah, never mind.

Yes, this seems suspect for sure. That MIT Prof. who was right the first time this happened has said it is highly unlikely that the canisters were dropped from planes. We may have been suckered.

Those were campaign platforms. Trump is not a Republican, he's something else. Trump won because he tapped into a portion of the population that fed off the hate he was spewing: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/ Perhaps you voted for him for a different reason but you voted alongside the worst elements of society, enabling and legitimizing them. It's not a fun time to be an American.

Actually, I think this is probably close to true. I don't see him as the master here at all. Doesn't mean he isn't culpable. I also don't think Russia rigged voting booths or any shit. I do think that Russia is engaged in world wide dis-information and election disruption on behalf of super right wing candidates. And they were probably in contact with Trump's underlings about those efforts.

Umm....OK. I could list all of his associates proven ties but you clearly don't want to hear that. I could point out that numerous US and foreign intelligence agencies have apparently picked up communications between Trump and Russians going back to at least the summer, but those are probably just lies perpetuated by the extreme left. I could point to his business dealings and public statements about the Russian pre-campaign, but I'm sure those are just completely irrelevant. So, all I can do is agree with you. Trump is the best. Women are scum. The environment is the worst. Immigrants are scary (unless they're white and Christian). You win. Let's go find some place to bomb together. We could organize a google hangout or something and point to areas on maps and just...mmmm...well, you know.

Ahh, I got it now. Some parts of the article I am supposed to believe and extrapolate on but other parts I am supposed to ignore. Here's where I stand - the US collects, stores and catalogs data on people whenever they can. They spy on foreign powers routinely (one of the big Snowden reveals was a tap on Merkel's phone), everyone paying attention knows this. Those that this is a revelation for, well, welcome to the party. Trump was clearly caught up in something with the Russians. If there was a direct tap on Trump that's interesting and directly contradicts very public statements from a number of very powerful people. It could be a big coordinated lie (not the first one) but I'm skeptical because there were other easier avenues/excuses for them to take if they were directly monitoring Trump. How the information was gained is important but it is not nearly as important as what it says. There seems to be another shoe to drop. If Trump wanted to he could declassify all of this right now. He hasn't done that. Instead he has engaged in a dramatic "about face" on foreign policy and has commenced dropping bombs or threatening to drop bombs on anyone that he thinks the media will find palatable. It's disgusting and transparent and unfortunately, effective.

Umm, I'm not sure you read the article you cited: "Spy agencies, including GCHQ, were not deliberately targeting members of the Trump team but rather recorded communications through “incidental collection,” CNN reports."

For fans of drone, a new album by the Fun Years just came out: http://www.springbreaktapes.com/#/the-fun-years-heroes-of-the-second-story-walkup/ Vinyl is hand numbered out of 300 with some pretty slick artwork. Here is their band camp: https://thefunyears.bandcamp.com

We agree on this point. It didn't take long for Trump to roll over and start playing with all the dangerous toys at his disposal. Seems like we are mobilizing in Korea too. Maybe now that the Repubs have their SC nominee in place they can get serious about looking into all the Russian connections and we can start the clock on Mike Pence's Christian Empire.

No, what I'm saying is Hillary isn't president. If she was then let's take a look at that (never heard of Bill making millions in Russia but I won't bother arguing). I've been pretty critical of Obama and the power structure in America here, I'm not sure how I'm a hypocrite. I supported Bernie but voted for Clinton because she was a much better candidate than Trump, not because I'm some sort of Clinton sycophant. I'm also not claiming to be unbiased. I am totally biased, everyone in this thread is biased. In my opinion, Trump is a lunatic with horrible policies who was elected on a technicality. If a foreign government helped push him over the finish line, then you're damn right I want that investigated and his ass booted if it's true.

Why is this about comparing the two still? No one is saying impeach Trump and bring in Hillary. As to connections between Trump and Russia, there are dozens of hazy ones and a lot of very concrete ones - (Manafort, Flynn, Trump's kids saying that most of their investors are Russian, etc.) and there doesn't seem to be much doubt that Russia conducting an anti-intelligence (or whatever) campaign against Clinton. It seems well established that Putin blamed Clinton, to some degree, for fomenting dissent against him within Russian borders. You can argue, blah blah blah MSM, bias, blah blah blah and choose not to believe any of this, which is fair, but these arguments that there are no Trump - Russia connections are based solely on conspiracy theory, not on reportable facts said during public hearings by the heads of our intelligence agencies. Like I said, no raging inferno yet (looking at you Flynn) but just a ton of really thick fucking smoke. And as a reminder this is besides the point. Trump on his own merits is anti-science/environment, anti-middle class, anti-immigrant, is escalating an already hopelessly entrenched war, has said scary shit about nukes and engages endlessly in self-aggrandizing conspiracy. To a stinking coastal "leftist" like me (and the majority of our country) this is a waking nightmare, Russia or not.

I was referring specifically to your Unicorn post and the "leftists backing out of arguments they can't win" post. The tone changed from healthy debate to smug.

Rambo, these last two posts are pretty fucking arrogant, which is a shame because you seem to at least be thoughtful. I haven't followed the entire back and forth and, as I said, I tend to believe that there is information gathering taking place on a large scale but that doesn't change a number of things: - This infrastructure exists regardless of who the president is and it is now in the hands of a man who shouldn't be trusted with it. - No one has been able to prove that Obama ordered that Trump be surveilled. He definitely seems to have been caught up in the gears of surveilling others (there is a ton of smoke with this Russia stuff), but that is markedly different than what Trump claimed. - I, along with most of my IRL friends, tend to believe that Snowden is a patriot, who deserve far better treatment than what he has received. I was very happy when Obama commuted the sentence for Chelsea Manning, a move that was met with a lot of partisan bluster from the right. - I think it is naive to think that Rs are the last bastion of liberty in this country. They set most of this apparatus in motion (Patriot Act) and are the ones most vehemently attacking anyone they find threatening their power structure. Both of the parties treat leaks opportunistically but the reaction from Trump to the leaks taking place now and his history of commenting on Snowden is pretty scary. If evidence comes out about point two then great, let's re-evaluate, otherwise being ir-retractable is different from winning arguments against snowflake "leftists". I can argue the sky is green until people give up too, doesn't mean I'm right. Sorry, if I missed some nuance of your argument but your last two posts were entering into WAXX territory, which is probably beneath you.

I agree with this very much, there is a huge secret infrastructure behind us now, snooping and spying and looking for footholds. Presidents do terrible, terrible, irredeemable things, it's part of the job. The problem is we have now elected an objectively bad man into the office that controls, or at least has access to this apparatus. That is a problem, and the fact that he may have ben helped by a foreign government, even more overtly anti-liberty than ours is also a problem. This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. If you're paying attention, it should be extremely difficult to defend this guy. If you just enjoy watching the world burn and people suffer, then so be it, but at least admit that's why you like him. Obama did some shitty horrible things. Trump is accelerating the pace of those shitty horrible things, including drone strikes and indiscriminate bombing.

Never mind ...

Just out of curiosity, which of the following, if any, do you also believe are true: - Trump's inauguration crowd was record breaking - Obama was born in Kenya - 3 million people voted illegally - Trump's win in the electoral college was the biggest since Reagan - Climate change is a Chinese conspiracy

Yes, I am a daily reader of the Intercept, I know full well the over reaching data collection machine we have running in the background of everything. No doubt that Trump was swept up in incidental collection of this (just like anyone else secretly conspiring with a foreign government). What I'm asking is, do you really believe that he was specifically targeted?

Wait, WAXXX, do you really buy that wire tapping stuff or are you just trolling?

Is everyone excited about ISPs being able to sell our browser histories? It might not rise to a cherry but it's at least a sprinkle on top of this shit sunday. It's been awhile since this thread was updated so let's recap the last month: The environment - fuck it Healthcare - fuck it Immigrants - fuck them These are high times.

HA, I stumbled on this channel in EXACTLY the same way (side note: The Incessant is awesome).

I would take a bit of umbrage with the assertion that the press praised Hillary during the election. I think the press went out of their way to treat her as critically as they did Trump, sometimes unfairly so (sometimes). There may have been the perception of bias at times, but I would argue that was fed mostly by having to cover a candidate so candid in his hatred for so many. How do you cover a candidate who says a judge overseeing his civil case for being a fraud is against him because he's Mexican, that Mexicans are rapists, that Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim, (etc. etc. etc., we all know the list) without seeming biased? The guy naturally looks terrible just by covering his exact quotes. I also don't understand his point about how the press now knows how the public should feel.

Phft, women..who takes them seriously anyway, amirightbros? Sandwichesrightbros? They'dbehappierwithoutbirthcontrolrightbros? Grabembythepussyrightbros? You guys are the best, bros. BBBBRRRROOOOOOOSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!