Likes: 
Faceplams: Honestly I don't see the point in cutting any of these off. Are they scared that people wouldn't be able to make their own opinion or what?
Throbbing Member
Honestly I don't see the point in cutting any of these off. Are they scared that people wouldn't be able to make their own opinion or what?
Bite me
I don't think the first segment was deliberately cut off, I think they just genuinely lost the signal. It's no secret (except to morons) that the Bill Clinton administration's crime policies led to mass incarcerations, which had nothing to do with Hillary but she herself has publicly addressed that, she hasn't been hiding out from it.Originally Posted by telee.kom
The FBI director saying that "it is possible" that aggressors accessed HRC's account (read: her server) takes a lot of balls considering that the FBI's own unencrypted server was hacked by the Chinese who stole over 20 million highly classified records, but Comey doesn't say anything about that; further, the *deleted* emails were *deleted* because they were personal and not subject to FOIA, but it doesn't mean that any of those emails were accessed by hackers because it wasn't until AFTER the FOIA-accessed emails were obtained that the emails suddenly appeared on Wikileaks. Which these talking heads don't seem to understand, nor does Comey. Look, the fucking GOVERNMENT can't keep its own servers safe so HRC putting a server in her basement was a good idea. But none of the other shit mentioned is fact, especially the Snopes-proven crap about that juvenile defense case (where lawyers know their clients are guilty all the time but still have to represent clients). Welcome to the system. There is LITTLE TO NOTHING in that case that they claim is "widely reported" that is actually TRUE, but none of it is important when you look at the actual facts of the case which is all non-relative to this Presidential campaign since she was an appointed public defense attorney.
Scared of people forming their own opinion from half-truths and bullshit? yes.
The nightly cable news isn't really "news" because of this reason; it's just a bunch of stupid agenda-based propaganda-generating machines for and against either side, spewing half-truths. I won't even WATCH CNN, anymore, and Fox News is a cesspool of shit. MSNBC is a bit better with Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd. I try to never miss an episode of "Meet the Press" on Sunday mornings. But that other shit isn't really "news" nor is it "information" because it's mostly just emotional drama-infused half-truth bullshit with pseudo experts; my DOG knows more about political science. The "real" news stations aren't necessarily pushing an agenda; they just want "real" journalism with real facts, and when people start pushing the conspiracy theory shit that hasn't been fact-checked (or is known to have been disputed by fact-checkers), then it's just conspiracy shit, and it's not fodder for real discussion or information, period.
Last edited by allegro; 08-17-2016 at 07:46 PM.
Active Member
WaPo dug up some specific laws that apply to where Biden lives, if you are curious: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...70da_blog.html
Yea, we do have castle doctrine out here in CA, but the anti-gun crowd has made it so that guns are only tools of death and can only be used to kill. A lot of self defense classes out here tell you to NEVER pull a gun out unless you are ready to instantly shoot the person. Brandishing to scare, warning shots, etc are all huge legal risks because they demonstrate that you didn't feel the situation warranted lethal force, and thus you were not justified in pulling out a lethal weapon. Of course, this all comes down to the subjective nature of a jury and things like brandishing will be tolerated much more than a warning shot, for instance, and all the other aspects of the situation. Even if you were in danger but the perp then decides to run away... but then you shot the perp in the back (while perp is still in your home), you'd be pretty screwed in CA even with castle doctrine.
Bite me
Nah, it will all come down to case law and enough of it has to occur that even that will change. See, the CRIMINAL has to file charges against you for being "scared" that you pulled out a gun but didn't do anything; meanwhile, you still have charges against the criminal for about 8 things that the criminal did. So at that point, the cops and then the prosecuting attorney are going to weigh out who did the worst thing; and judges are more likely to throw out cases where people were genuinely scared but didn't want to just kill somebody yet want to show "use of force" in their own defense, and good luck getting a cop to even file charges. I already told you the story of my half-brother using his gun to hold a guy who had entered into his HOUSE and the perp was whining "you can't do that" to my half-brother even though the guy broke through the fucking front door window at 2 am and was standing inside my half-brother's house and then my half-brother was holding a loaded gun to the asshole's head while my half-brother's g/f called 911, and the cops showed up and my bro threw the gun into the bushes fearing he'd get into trouble, but the cops GAVE MY BRO HIS GUN BACK, arrested the thug, and told my half-brother "have an nice night." Far less paperwork than if my bro had splattered the guy's brains all over the carpet.
Re that article and Joe Biden:
Still, on the face of it, the NRA’s case seems fairly strong. However, State Prosecutor Kathleen Jennings, who heads the Delaware Justice Department’s Criminal Division, disagreed. “In Delaware, a person can legally fire a weapon to protect themselves and others from someone intruding onto her dwelling,” she said in an interview.
Jennings pointed to several parts of the Delaware criminal code relating to defending the use of force (including the 11 Del. Code 466 cited by the NRA) to back up her statement. In particular, she mentioned:
■“The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion…. The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.” (11 Del. Code 464)
■The use of force is justified against an intruder unlawfully in your dwelling (home), even if it results in death or injury if “the encounter between the occupant and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the occupant to act instantly; or the occupant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the occupant or others in the dwelling; or the occupant demanded that the intruder disarm or surrender, and the intruder refused to do so.” (11 Del. Code 469)
Jennings said that Delaware laws allow for a fairly “subjective test” of self-defense, particularly in the case of a woman alone at night who believes she faces imminent danger in her dwelling. “A person is justified in using force if she believes it is necessary for self-protection,” she said, but she added that “clearly you can’t just fire a gun if you are not in a self-protection scenario.”
Jennings would have the final decision on whether to bring a case, so her interpretation of the law has some authority.
Last edited by allegro; 08-17-2016 at 07:43 PM.
Active Member
Trump has shuffled his campaign again. Hires Breitbart executive chairman Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO.
Breitbart is literally running Trump's campaign now. Some staffers are allegedly gonna jump ship on the campaign as well according to The Hill.
Trump can't really complain about the bias medias when he actually hires the CEO of the biggest right-wing new website.
I can't believe I'm gonna agree with someone on FoxNews but here it is. Right on the money.
Active Member
Dr. Drew "gravely concerned" over Hilary's health. Please give this all the facepalms today.
Bite me
10-4.
Ugh, he's such a dick. No "medical records" have been released; a medical evaluation was released, which was a ONE-PAGE LETTER, and the crap he's going on about happened in 2012 and she's already gotten over that shit. He should lose his medical license.
Active Member
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...46213079498752
WTF does that even mean, "Mr. Brexit"?
Bite me
I dunno, but I'm with Hillary on that one.
Active Member
Why Clinton doesnt have the race locked up:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ace-locked-up/
tempus est umbra in mente
But seriously, what the hell is he trying to say with that Mr Brexit comment? Was his Twitter hacked?
Active Member
The guy is a fruitcake. Who knows what he meant.
This may explain it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...exit/88947110/
Last edited by GulDukat; 08-18-2016 at 12:25 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
I mean, I guess it's his addle-brained way of saying "You know how nobody thought Brexit would pass? I didn't, because I was barely aware of it, and certainly demonstrated that I didn't understand the divisiveness of the issue throughout the UK... but nobody thought it would pass, right? People looked at the polls, tremendous polls, just tremendous, and the polls said that Brexit would fail, tremendously. But guess what? It was tremendous. It passed, mostly thanks to the elderly nationalist vote from xenophobes and racists!
Well, that's how this presidential election is going to be! The polls may be indicating that I'm going to lose tremendously. But just like Brexit, I'm actually going to win because there's a tremendous number of racist cranky xenophobic dumbfucks in this country, and they're going to come out and vote. And just like with Brexit, the world will respond in horror, and the American people will realize what a stupid fucking thing they did, and like Brexit, they'll be clamoring for a do-over vote. They'll be crying, saying 'no, we didn't mean it! We were just angry at Hillary and thought we were sending a legitimate message to Washington about how sad I was that Bernie Sanders didn't win! It was just a joke! Please, NOOOOOOOO!'
But it will be too late folks. Tremendously too late, and soon everyone will be calling me Mr Brexit, while they stare into the void in horror, and silently scream, trying to wake themselves up from this terrible nightmare... but it will be real. Tremendously real. And oh yes, folks, you will know sorrow."
Maybe that was what he meant to say, but the Twitter character limit truncated his message a bit?
Last edited by Jinsai; 08-18-2016 at 06:10 PM.
Active Member
I really didn't want to like your post, it just rings too true.
tempus est umbra in mente
well, as genuinely worried as I am that he has a legitimate chance at winning the election, it still feels good to see moments like this
Active Member
Yeah, the democrats who think Hillary has this locked up already because "polls" are sorely deluded.
I think it's perfectly possible Trump could win this, it's a long time to November.
Bite me
NOBODY has any election "locked up" until it's over, period.
Active Member
Meanwhile, if you live in a major city in the U.S., you may have seen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ies/?tid=sm_fb
http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12...eles-indecline
Last edited by GulDukat; 08-18-2016 at 02:18 PM.
Bite me
This is funny and interesting.
"Trump’s Campaign Is Looking More And More Like An Elaborate Media Launch; If there’s one thing we know about The Donald, it’s that he loves being in the spotlight."
SEE ALSO THIS.The notion that a presidential candidate would be competing hardest in the waning months of an election for potential subscribers or viewers down the line is unprecedented in American politics. But Trump’s recent actions have suggested to a number of journalists and political operatives that his greatest ambition might not be the White House.
On Tuesday, left-wing documentarian Michael Moore wrote that he “knows for a fact” that Trump never wanted to occupy the Oval Office. Instead, Trump launched his presidential bid as a means of increasing the value of his brand, thereby extracting more favorable terms in his negotiations with NBC over the next season of The Apprentice. But the ploy backfired — while, paradoxically, working too well.
Trump’s decision to deride Mexicans as “rapists” and “drug dealers” in his launch speech rendered him toxic to the network — but beloved by GOP primary voters. Soon, Trump had lost a show but gained an unprecedented level of attention and fame. This was tremendous. But also horrible, because it put him in the impossible position of desperately wanting to be the ultimate “winner,” while also desperately not wanting to actually be president.
Elements of Moore’s narrative are backed up by the confession of a former Trump campaign strategist, published by xoJane in March. The story also seems consistent with Vanity Fair’s report that the candidate has been mulling the creation of his own conservative cable-news empire, once the campaign is through. The magazine wrote that “the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the ‘audience’ currently supporting him,” and had “discussed the possibility of launching a “mini-media conglomerate.”
So, slip those Trump shoes back on, one last time. Imagine that you launched a presidential campaign to further your showbiz career. After 14 months as a candidate, you’ve realized that you can’t win in November but you can attract an audience of conservative-news consumers who are looking for an alternative to Fox News. How would you spend the last weeks of your campaign?
Perhaps, you would prioritize keeping your prospective audience entertained, above all else. And to do that, you’d make someone with experience in far-right infotainment the chief executive of your campaign. Plus, you might want to seek out an adviser who really knows the cable-news business. Someone like, I don’t know, Roger Ailes?
Let’s dispel with this fiction that Donald Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
Last edited by allegro; 08-18-2016 at 06:15 PM.
Active Member
You've got to be thinking that a Trump win could actually resulting in a better long term result for Dems. Instead of repeating their stupid shit they might have a come-to-jesus moment and pull their heads out of their asses. Gut the neocon bullshit from their party and get on with it.
Active Member
Yeah, there is one out here in SF in the Castro. Someone put a 3d printed Trump butt plug underneath it.
There is definitely some hypocritical body-shaming shit going on here though.
The group's video is good. I want the track they made for this...
Active Member
The Empreor Has No Clothes is not about body-shaming, it's about blindly following an idiot.
Active Member
right... an overweight nude statue of a barely visible dick and no balls... titled "the emperor has no balls" ... and who's own promo video contains multiple closeups of his dick... yeah that totally has nothing to do with the form of the body on display. Him being an idiot is totally just conveyed by uh... his posture... yeah, that's what it is!
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 08-18-2016 at 07:21 PM.
Active Member
This is what I believe is called left accelerationism: the idea that it needs to get worse so it can get better. But recent history has shown that this isn't the case: as the right pulls rightward, the left goes rightward too, and this is what has happened in the 90s and into the present: the left gained power with Clinton and Blair by incorporating and offering its own more charismatic brand of Reaganism and Thatcherism. Now the left has gone so far rightward that it is centrist neoliberalism, and there is no genuine left alternative, meanwhile, the right continues to pull rightward. Bernie, and in the UK Corbyn, in Spain Podemos, and in Greece Syriza, have shown there is a hunger for a left edge, but not enough mainstream support to bring it to or keep it in power.
That said, on social issues there is still a considerable difference between dems and repubs.
Last edited by aggroculture; 08-18-2016 at 09:05 PM.
Active Member
Apparently the guy behind INDECLINE is Ryen McPherson, the scumbag that was behind Bumfights.
Active Member
hrmm... How does recent history show that's not the case? You just outlined how the 90s to present resulted in a slow shift toward the right. There has not been a significant event within the left that would have triggered the "accelerationism" as you term it. It sure seems like we could use one about now as the last few decades haven't been very positive.
And just for clarity, I don't exactly know what left accelerationism is... but I don't think a slow slide toward something worse is going to trigger this. You need a sudden slap in the face. And I don't think that you absolutely NEED this for it to get better, but it certainly seems like a viable option.
Bite me
@DigitalChaos We kinda had that slap with Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft which led to a Dem-controlled Congress and a Dem President for 2 terms. Is that what you mean?
Technically, we've been shifting to the right since the end of the Nixon administration (the "last liberal President" according to Chomsky, and Chomsky says that many of Nixon's programs are now being dismantled or are under attack).
The only way that this country can truly shift left is for the right to shift left, as did Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. Also, I believe that Libertarians with liberal social views gaining more control of government may shift things to the left.
I agree about the Trump sculpture body-shaming thing.
Last edited by allegro; 08-18-2016 at 11:25 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
It's also an "artistic statement" that reeks of ulterior self-promotion, and a generally vapid message, but hey... do what you gotta do I guess. Congratulations on going viral guys. Mission accomplished.
Active Member
Yeah, after thinking about it last night there is certainly some body-shaming going on. No need for the 'artist' to portray any body parts that we may or may not know about. Probably would have been a better message for it to have a Ken doll look instead, something neutral.
Mea culpa.
Active Member
That could be a minor example but it seems more like the natural pendulum shift. I'm pretty sure most Dems would consider Trump a much bigger slap.
Sure. But how did the libertarians start gaining so much ground? The Romney loss was, hilariously, this super surprising loss for the GOP who was sure he had it in the bag (sound a bit like Dems right now?). When considering that they also lost with McCain/Palin... they realized they needed to make some serious changes and the libertarian forces that started pushing during the 2008 election started gaining even more traction. Granted, the whole GOP is still being fractured and trying to figure out wtf it wants to be, and that's why you have Trump right now. But the point is that it has seen some large change due to large failures combined with the timing of a libertarian push.
THAT is what I would love to see the Dems do. The Bernie movement is similar to the Ron Paul movement in the 08 elections, except Bernie had a much higher chance of becoming the chosen party candidate than Ron Paul did. That tells me they have a much stronger chance of changing the party, doing it quite rapidly, and doing it with less of the "aaaaaand now we have Trump!" type situations. A lot of that is going to be lost under another 4-8 years of Dem presidency. Sure, you'll still have the dedicated ones working at the local level... but NOTHING mobilizes Dems more than a Republican.
Posting Permissions
