Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

There is a fair amount of "chicken with its head cut off" response from O'Keefe's subjects as well.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Seems like I'm not the only one having to explain their views as someone who voted for Trump. In this instance, I more or less agree with Roaming Millennial... https://youtu.be/rt1Wx97WYiI

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump just handed over intelligence that was classified and given to him as such.  It came from the Israelis, who clearly had no intention of sharing it with the Russians.  He uses an unsecure phone to tweet and such.  He basically admitted to firing Comey to keep the pressure of himself.  I really do not see how this guy stays in office?  Again, this has nothing to do with politics.  I abhor the politics of Mike Pence, but at least I can trust him to not be this careless nor employ a team of traitors either.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Once the President decides to hand over information, it's no longer classified. He has the ability to declassify information if he wants. For example, if Obama wanted to share information about British nuclear weapons with the Russians... actually, he did do that. Which seems worse to me than Trump telling the Russians about an ISIS plot to put bombs in laptops.

Why are people so shocked and upset about this sort of thing, unless they haven't been paying attention until now?

Trump has done and said any number of things that I disagree with, but as far as I can tell from the evidence that we have, he hasn't broken any laws or done anything that justifies impeachment.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

What exactly has Trump done that you disagree with in the slightest, given that you take no issue with Trump blurting out codeword information shared covertly and secretly from an asset that will most likely no longer trust US intelligence now that the president has established that he will brag about secret information just to impress any guests who happen to be passing through?

I ask merely for the information.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

And Trump revelations continue to bear an uncanny resemblance to President Lex Luthor's ousting from the White House...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … c0049f1ebe

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

And Trump revelations continue to bear an uncanny resemblance to President Lex Luthor's ousting from the White House...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … c0049f1ebe

But you have to admit, it'll be pretty damn cool if we end up with this visual in the conclusion:

https://chasemagnett.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/president-luthor.jpg?w=723

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Off the top of my head, I haven't been happy with Trump's willingness to settle on a half-assed Obamacare repeal, just so he can say that he got it passed. I would rather see a longer process with a better result than a quick process that makes more of a mess.

Also, I didn't like the situation with the Turkish guards beating protesters in the US and thought that Trump should have stepped up and taken a firmer stand on that when it happened.

I think he has failed to pull his team together and communicate with his own people, which results in different people speaking without knowing all of the facts.

I'm sure there are other things, but I'm watching something while I type this, so my brain isn't all here.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Jared Kushner met with Russia's ambassador to US at Trump Tower in December

President's son-in-law reportedly proposed a secret back-channel of communications between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin

Kushner reportedly suggested to Sergey Kislyak that Russian diplomatic facilities be used in order to avoid detection by US authorities

Investigators believe the matters discussed during the meeting have relevance to ongoing probe into alleged ties between Trump campaign and Russia

Reuters is reporting that Kushner had at least three previously undisclosed contacts with the Russian ambassador during and after the 2016 campaign

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … oscow.html

I'm not sure if this is illegal or not, but it's DAMNED UNAMERICAN if you ask me. This family has sold us out to the Ruskies.  Again, forget Obamacare or North Korea or Ford plants in Mexico, we need to focus first and foremost on whether this White House and it's underlings are perhaps the most un-American, corrupt, and unethical ever witnessed?

710 (edited by Informant 2017-06-04 14:50:04)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Crazy week in news.

Black Lives Matter awarded a peace prize...

The mainstream media turns a Twitter typo into an espionage conspiracy.

Kathy Griffin starts a sh*tfire and then holds the most hilarious press conference ever in order to manage the backlash (exclusive footage available here: https://youtu.be/aUFdnPLHX-g )

And another terrorist attack. I've run out of ways of expressing sympathy and outrage. I'm sure that the hashtags and apathy will put an end to terrorism eventually though. If they don't work, maybe I'll change my Facebook profile pic. That'll show them.

I don't mean to make light of these attacks, but I find it absolutely baffling to see people carefully stepping around the extremist elephant in the room as they discuss how we should be addressing terrorism going forward. Some have the nerve to say that we should get used to it, or we should have sympathy for the hardships that the terrorists have faced. Screw that. All of my sympathy is tied up elsewhere.

The world has cancer and far too many people are putting their faith in happy thoughts and well wishes to eradicate that cancer.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

You're correct, if all religion could be somehow excised and the human brain made to never conceive of any of it again, we'd all be better for it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

You're projecting onto most religions. Clearly, one of these things is not like the others.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I don't mean to make light of these attacks, but I find it absolutely baffling to see people carefully stepping around the extremist elephant in the room as they discuss how we should be addressing terrorism going forward. Some have the nerve to say that we should get used to it, or we should have sympathy for the hardships that the terrorists have faced. Screw that. All of my sympathy is tied up elsewhere.

A lot of it just comes down to what makes us safer, and the debate around that. I think everyone generally understands the problem similarly, but there's disagreement on how to deal with it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

For rational people, maybe. But there is a big problem with people who are completely unwilling to address the problem of terrorism and the community that is stems from. Obama wouldn't even reference Islamic terrorism because he was afraid of offending the nice Muslims. We have first-world politicians who are more likely to be outraged by a Trump tweet than to be outraged by the fact that entire communities in Europe are turning into third-world style no-go zones, run by largely-Muslim gangs that rape, kidnap and assault people who enter their territory.

Not talking about people on this board, but I have been called "literally" a Nazi sympathizer, because I voted for the "racist", "fascist" and "dangerous" Donald Trump and his "Muslim ban", by people whose response to these endless terrorist attacks is to post a hashtag and insist that we must support the Muslim community, or else the terrorists have won. My mind is officially boggled. People will physically attack people over relatively small political differences, and then turn around and demand sympathy and tolerance for communities that believe in honor killings.

I am not saying that every Muslim is evil. I am saying that there is a clear and dangerous problem in the Muslim community, and it reaches beyond those who plow down crowds of people at a time or shoot up night clubs. A lot of these communities are made up of people from nations that do not live by the standards of the modern world, and pretending that they are the same as the rest of us, just because we don't want to sound racist, is insane. You can't just grab people from one land and throw them into the middle of a foreign and fundamentally different community, and expect it all to go swimmingly.

There is a huge issue here that people are not discussing, because it requires being blunt and potentially offensive. In other words, it's a grown-up conversation about real world issues. Until that issue is addressed and dealt with, there is not going to be an end to these attacks. London, France, Australia... and these are just the ones that are still in the current news cycle.

People have a right to free speech (in the US. In London, saying that you want to end terrorism will have you investigated for hate crimes) and the right to practice their religion. I'm not saying that they don't, and I'm not saying "every middle eastern person..." I am saying that there are *cultures* that are simply not compatible with our culture, and we can't pretend that they are. The comes a point where trying to be inclusive just gets people raped and/or killed.


It's amazing how much of this post is made up of me trying to explain a rather obvious opinion in a way that doesn't set off "racist" alarms in peoples heads. It should  have been a three sentence post! smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:


It's amazing how much of this post is made up of me trying to explain a rather obvious opinion in a way that doesn't set off "racist" alarms in peoples heads. It should  have been a three sentence post! smile

Yes, I agree we can't have honest conversations to the point where it interferes with problem-solving.  And a lot of people just stay out of the conversation because the upside isn't worth it. And then some people take the risk and do so and it becomes a mess.  Humans aren't always the most impressive species.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … fd6f98a8b7

This is only the beginning.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … fd6f98a8b7

This is only the beginning.

My question - will Mueller start investigating the leaks now coming out of his investigation?  Probably not.  But that's the interesting thing here - only a few are being held accountable for their actions while everyone else runs amok.  It's certainly been the case throughout history, but I don't recall in my lifetime ever seeing it so blatant and out in the open.

If Trump has done something wrong, it shouldn't have to be tried in the media on a second by second basis.  Imagine if that's how our legal system worked?  Actually might be a good idea for a Sliders alt history (though probably not dissimilar enough from Dead Man Sliding to be honest).

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I just want it to all be over, one way or another.  I feel like both sides are so petty about this, and it's accomplishing nothing.  Trump is an idiot, but he's an idiot that no one on either side really wanted.  I'm sure the Republicans are happy to have control of the White House, but I'm sure they wished it was by some other means.  And the Democrats are so focused on what they feel was stolen from them that they can't do anything else.

If Trump committed any crime at any point....sure, get him out of there.  But I'm still worried about the next domino.  No matter what, the next democratic president is going to be under insane scrutiny.  It doesn't matter who it is, but if the democrats thought the republicans were hard on Obama and Hillary...imagine all the insanity that will happen when they try and retaliate for Trump's dismissal.

Yesterday's shooting should've been more alarming.  A shooting that was exclusively "us vs. them" politically motivated.  No one died, but blood was shed in a (becoming-literal) war between republicans and democrats.  As someone who doesn't identify as either, it's sickening to see how people are acting.  Neither side has any interest in the high road, and both are de-humanizing the other to the point where I'm worried that events like this are going to be more common.  If the people on the other side are just brainless monsters that are trying to destroy everything you have, why not just kill them all?

It's terrifying.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

These leaks and anonymous sources need to end. People need prison. Because it not only proves that they're more interested in destroying Trump (if not legally, then in public opinion) than seeing justice served, but that they are willing to ignore laws, violate the Constitution, and endanger the country in order to see Trump destroyed.

This is not legitimate investigation.

720 (edited by Grizzlor 2017-06-15 11:07:36)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Hate to spoil your party, but most of these leaks are completely LEGAL!  Leaking classified information is not, but very little of this is.  Information is leaked in criminal investigations all the time, and frankly what evidence has been leaked?  I haven't seen much of anything.  Someone "leaking" that Mueller is possibly investigated Trump.  How is that illegal or illegitimate in any fashion?  Someone IS going to prison, this crazy girl who leaked and was caught recently, but she had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

Now, here's the issue.  The prosecutor might have enough to charge Trump; however, the Justice Department, as a matter of procedure, has always stopped short of doing so to a sitting President.  Instead, they turn that over to the House, who must decide on impeachment.  Well, this GOP controlled body I would assume would never go forward with that.  So short of forcing Trump to resign, or wait until Dems potentially take control for 2019, all of this may not result in anything.

That being said, Trump's agenda is DOA.  He's become a de facto lame duck, not even 6 months in!  And it's 100% his OWN FAULT.  His asinine comments on NBC News about why he fired Comey were the dumbest he could have said.  He can't help himself.  He's gotten away with numerous violations of law and finance throughout his career, so he feels invincible.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Hate to spoil your party, but most of these leaks are completely LEGAL!.

And if it's all kosher, then why aren't the leakers putting their name to it?  Instead we get "officials familiar with" or "sources say".

Maybe you say "but they'll get fired if they reveal who they are!"  They know they have no protection or justification for leaking these things.  This isn't whistleblower stuff; it's just smear.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

They do the same thing for a sports story.  "On condition of anonymity."  I don't see what the big deal is?  Hillary was sunk by the same nonsense that put Captain Orange in the White House.  What goes around, comes around.  This is the same President to lies day and night, and literally makes stuff up about people, such as questioning the prior President's birth certificate.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

In the latest reversal of campaign rhetoric, the Trump administration is not ending the DACA program.  "Dreamers" will continue to receive work permits and be protected from deportation.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Sorry for my late response. For some reason, I thought that summer would be the best time to build a retaining wall, so I've spent the past week outside all day and wanting to do as little as possible once I got inside. For the record, it's hot in Texas. Go figure.


Anyway...

No, not all of the leaks have been illegal. Some of them have been (even before Trump was President), and those people need to be thrown in prison. While other leaks may not be illegal, they should not be without consequences. People should be fired. And I'm not just talking about the lowly clerks who leak things to the press because they want to feel important, I'm talking about the high ranking officials who don't have the evidence that they wish they had to prosecute someone officially, so they decide to destroy them in the press instead. This is happening a lot with Trump.

As I've said before, I don't like Trump. If it comes time for him to get gone, so be it. However, I don't like being misled or blatantly lied to. I like facts, and people working for our government are supposed to be serving the people, not their own opinions and interests. When government are actively working to legitimize the President for no reason other than the fact that they think he's a creep, we have a problem. And it's not the President.

You say that Trump is a lame duck at this point. That may be true, but it's not something to celebrate, no matter how you feel about Trump. He can't get anything done because people don't like him as a person and they're throwing the most epic tantrum imaginable. This will cost us a lot of money. It will do harm to the American people. It could cost lives. This isn't the prom that we're talking about, it's the free world, at a time when there are a lot of bad people who want to kill as many of us as possible. And I'm not blaming the democrats for this. The republicans are equally to blame, if not more. Conservatives should be having a field day right now, but our own damn people are getting in the way of doing anything. The establishment republicans might as well be democrats at this point. They need to go.

A President shouldn't be able to do whatever they want without any question or debate. We've seen that happen in the past, and it usually doesn't result in a good outcome. Issues should be discussed and debated before they're voted on, and I'm not saying that Trump should be given a blank check. But the way this is happening is wrong. We have politicians working with the press to actively mislead (and by this I mean that they're blatantly lying to) the American people, not just about the issues, but about the President himself. At this point, the New York Times could publish a picture of Trump shooting an elderly woman and I probably wouldn't believe them, because they've lied too many times.

How is any of this productive? How is any of this good for us? Barack Obama was a self-absorbed idiot who did a lot of damage to this country, but we didn't see this level of effort going into destroying the office of the President in order to take down the man who was occupying it. The branches of the government are supposed to regulate each other, but they're not supposed to each work toward building their own shadow government.

And sorry, but this is nothing like Obama's birth certificate. Obama actively worked to keep his birth certificate from being released, despite many requests by people who had a right to confirm the eligibility of a man who has a pretty unique background when it comes to citizenship. John McCain had to show his birth certificate, and his citizenship was questioned as well, despite the fact that there really was no question about it. Obama could have put that issue to rest within a day, but it made for great press, painting his opponents as racist conspiracy theorists. That whole scandal was of Obama's making.


The system is a mess right now, and a lot of people want to put the blame for that on Trump. Sorry to say, but he (and his stupid twitter account) is probably the least of the problems that we're facing right now. People are trying to pin a lot of Hitler-y stuff on him, just to make the "rebellion" look less batsh*t crazy, but none of it holds water. And while they throw their tantrum, their followers are still assaulting people, burning things, tipping cars, and shooting up baseball fields. And I'm going to include that because you know that if that wacko had worked on Trump's campaign, he'd be forced to own that shooting.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

One of my favourite games is to keep track of the kinds of people Informant considers to be above reproach. You either have to be the laughingstock of American politics (Sarah Palin), a noted fraudster (James O'Keefe) and apparently, supporting moronic conspiracy theories of zero-evidence but plenty of hatred for black people is also an excellent way to win his approval.

And if you can also be an incompetent US President who blurts out classified information and thinks the best way to avoid obstruction of justice charges is to fire an FBI director in order to obstruct an ongoing investigation, Informant will claim all your problems are someone else's doing!

Leaks to the press are currently one of the few means of holding Trump accountable for his actions given his current hold of the White House, the Senate, Congress, the Department of Justice and his personal wealth. The press is one of the few avenues in which he does not have a high level of control. Furthermore, none of these leaks are in any way illegal because the information is not remotely classified. Is it a firing offense? Certainly. A criminal one? If it were, anyone angsting in a bar about a lousy day at work would be sitting behind bars.

Furthermore, Trump has confessed in one of his random outbursts that he fired the former FBI director to impede the investigation into suspected collusion with Russia. It is illegal to engage in obstruction of justice and to interfere with a criminal investigation regardless of being innocent of the suspected crime. The tradition of the White House and the FBI staying on separate paths is to prevent the executive branch from influencing the Department of Justice for the benefit of the executive branch because it can lead to criminal actions like curtailing proceedings that threatened the commander in chief's legal standing.

As for the complaint that people wanted to impeach Trump before he'd even been sworn into office -- part of it was indeed sour grapes and it'd be silly to think there wasn't a desire to impeach in advance of finding cause. But Trump's behaviour in his business dealings have largely been through fraud: encouraging investors to fund real estate deals designed to collapse with Trump taking their money and running, a fraudulent university, engaging the services of construction and law firms and refusing to pay.

Trump earned his fortune on cheating people and students of his past had a reasonable expectation that Trump take improper advantage of his presidency for personal gain on criminal terms

Shooting Republicans is wrong. Trying to run them off the road is wrong. I'm also uncomfortable with punching Nazis unless it's a time of war. However, it is intriguing that the people who cite acts of Liberal on Republican violence have next to no comment on the burst of hate crimes in the wake of a Trump presidency. The truth is likely a middle ground where anger and partisan rage against either side has led to people revealing their most hateful, volatile and aggressive instincts whether it's on one side or the other.

But regardless of where we stand politically, the US election was subject to a blatant attack on a democratic electoral system by a foreign power that did so to the benefit of a particular individual, possibly in tandem and possibly not, but the truth must be found because this isn't the end. The Russian administration will only increase and further advance their methods of interfering in the process of US government and the consequences will be severe for everyone whether we live in the States or don't. Like it or not, America has led civilization into freedom and progress for over 240 years and it must be defended and protected not just geographically, but ideologically, politically and therefore technologically. I'm not an American, but if you go down, we all go down.

A supposedly innocent President should welcome a full and invasive investigation in order to clear himself and his office, as opposed to firing the former lead investigator and hoping to fire the next one. It's not only the behaviour of a guilty man, it's arguably illegal if evidence can establish the intent to block the investigation. Mueller is a registered Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush as the sixth FBI director. He won universal acclaim from both parties upon his appointment and he should be encouraged to conduct his investigation and find the truth. A person who objects to his investigating Russian interference, potential collusion with Americans and the president obstructing justice is a person afraid of the truth.

The fact that Informant is against a full investigation of the Russian assault on the American electoral process and the potential involvement of the President makes me wonder if Informant loves America as much as he likes to say he does.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

One of my favourite games is to keep track of the kinds of people Informant considers to be above reproach. You either have to be the laughingstock of American politics (Sarah Palin), a noted fraudster (James O'Keefe) and apparently, supporting moronic conspiracy theories of zero-evidence but plenty of hatred for black people is also an excellent way to win his approval.

I think that there is a phantom me living inside your head. Because most of what you say about me isn't based on anything I've ever said. In fact, it often runs directly counter to what I've said.

Phantom Me stands behind you, whispering evil little things into your ear as you read my comments, giving you the impression that I'm saying them, even if it's not true. But hot-damn is Phantom Me starting to annoy the real me. Now he's a racist?! I fucking hate this guy!!! Can we ban him from the board or something?

And if you can also be an incompetent US President who blurts out classified information and thinks the best way to avoid obstruction of justice charges is to fire an FBI director in order to obstruct an ongoing investigation, Informant will claim all your problems are someone else's doing!

There are man reasons why Comey was fired, and many of them should have had him fired months ago. Some of them should now have him investigated for crimes. I'm not going to shed a tear for weasel. I know you love ignoring the misdeeds of anyone that sympathizes with your cause, but I'm not as easy to win over. Also, you love racists. 

Leaks to the press are currently one of the few means of holding Trump accountable for his actions given his current hold of the White House, the Senate, Congress, the Department of Justice and his personal wealth. The press is one of the few avenues in which he does not have a high level of control. Furthermore, none of these leaks are in any way illegal because the information is not remotely classified. Is it a firing offense? Certainly. A criminal one? If it were, anyone angsting in a bar about a lousy day at work would be sitting behind bars.

I've already said that not all of the leaks are criminal offenses. However, some of the leaks that have come out of this culture of leaky sources have been illegal.

If you think that Trump is currently commanding that much power, you are watching the wrong news. Seriously, even Grizzlor has referred to him as a lame duck president at this point, because the man can't get a second scoop of ice cream without it becoming a national scandal. Sorry, but you're projecting a Lex Luthor image onto him, and it doesn't really gel with reality (not Winner... just actual reality).

The press isn't holding Trump accountable for his actions. Oftentimes, they are making up the story and creating facts to back it up. There is a difference between reporting truth, and creating stories that will give the public the image of the truth that you want them to believe. How many people do you think even know what Russia did when they "interfered" in the election? Do you know?
And how man people believe that Trump was absolutely involved, despite having absolutely zero evidence? This is because of selective leaks of suggestive "facts", and the withholding of any information that wouldn't support the story.

Trump may not have control of the press, but they have lost their control as well. They're every bit as juvenile and insane with their reporting as Trump is with his Twitter account.


Furthermore, Trump has confessed in one of his random outbursts that he fired the former FBI director to impede the investigation into suspected collusion with Russia. It is illegal to engage in obstruction of justice and to interfere with a criminal investigation regardless of being innocent of the suspected crime. The tradition of the White House and the FBI staying on separate paths is to prevent the executive branch from influencing the Department of Justice for the benefit of the executive branch because it can lead to criminal actions like curtailing proceedings that threatened the commander in chief's legal standing.

Except that Trump wasn't under investigation... something which the leakers just happened to leave out of the newspapers. Comey (by virtue of being one of those leakers, which he has admitted) has misled the American people into believing something that he knew was not true. This is on top of his lying under oath about Trump being the only president that he ever felt a need to take notes about after meeting with him (references to such notes being written after meeting Bush are in the book "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency", released in 2009)

We did learn some interesting details about Comey's work under the previous administration, in regards to the Hillary Clinton investigation, but how much of that can be trusted? The man is a liar, with zero credibility. He absolutely deserved to be fired. And while I'm not sure that Trump can be found guilty of trying to put an end to an investigation into himself, which was neither taking place at the time, nor seems to be going away anytime soon, I'm sure that if he is guilty of trying to interfere with an investigation, he will pay the price for it. Just like all of the other presidents who have done such things... right?

Also, you love Sarah Palin. I don't know why, but you seem to really love her. A lot. It's not healthy.


As for the complaint that people wanted to impeach Trump before he'd even been sworn into office -- part of it was indeed sour grapes and it'd be silly to think there wasn't a desire to impeach in advance of finding cause. But Trump's behaviour in his business dealings have largely been through fraud: encouraging investors to fund real estate deals designed to collapse with Trump taking their money and running, a fraudulent university, engaging the services of construction and law firms and refusing to pay.

Trump earned his fortune on cheating people and students of his past had a reasonable expectation that Trump take improper advantage of his presidency for personal gain on criminal terms


Yup. He's not a man that I like. Still, I don't put the cart before the horse. Obama gave many people many reasons for wanting to get him out of office, but we still had to be realistic about it. I like to make jokes about the fact that he didn't even know how many states there were when he was running for office (he said it was he'd been to fifty-seven, with one more to go... Hawaii and Alaska. Seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws ) but I would have thought it was stupid to make an actual scandal out of it, the way "legit" news sources tried doing with Trump's Twitter spell check error.


Shooting Republicans is wrong. Trying to run them off the road is wrong. I'm also uncomfortable with punching Nazis unless it's a time of war. However, it is intriguing that the people who cite acts of Liberal on Republican violence have next to no comment on the burst of hate crimes in the wake of a Trump presidency. The truth is likely a middle ground where anger and partisan rage against either side has led to people revealing their most hateful, volatile and aggressive instincts whether it's on one side or the other.

The problem is that we have celebrities, journalists and even politicians urging violence. Who, on the right, has called for violence? And in regards to hate crimes, there is a lot to look at there. First of all, I know of several cases of hate crimes being reported and heavily covered in the media, only to turn out to be false in the end. So, just like with "cops kill black people!" outrage, I would have to look at each case individually.

What can I say about hate crimes under Trump? If there are more, I don't get it. Trump isn't saying anything racist or homophobic, and none of his policies have reflected any sort of hate. I don't get the connection between Trump and hate crimes.


But regardless of where we stand politically, the US election was subject to a blatant attack on a democratic electoral system by a foreign power that did so to the benefit of a particular individual, possibly in tandem and possibly not, but the truth must be found because this isn't the end. The Russian administration will only increase and further advance their methods of interfering in the process of US government and the consequences will be severe for everyone whether we live in the States or don't. Like it or not, America has led civilization into freedom and progress for over 240 years and it must be defended and protected not just geographically, but ideologically, politically and therefore technologically. I'm not an American, but if you go down, we all go down.

I agree. Russia needs to be stopped. Perhaps this problem wouldn't exist if Obama had taken the Russia threat seriously, instead of making a "The 80's called..." joke when Romney brought it up, but here we are. It's a problem. It needs to be dealt with. But instead of dealing with the Russians, the focus is on our own President, who was legally elected, since there is zero evidence of actual voter fraud. The Russians released incriminating information about the democrats (who were themselves trying to manipulate the election). What Russia did was wrong and should be dealt with. But... the democrats were also really wrong there and still deserved to lose. As of right now, there's more to incriminate Hillary of trying to sway the election than there is Trump, but nobody is mentioning that.



A supposedly innocent President should welcome a full and invasive investigation in order to clear himself and his office, as opposed to firing the former lead investigator and hoping to fire the next one. It's not only the behaviour of a guilty man, it's arguably illegal if evidence can establish the intent to block the investigation. Mueller is a registered Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush as the sixth FBI director. He won universal acclaim from both parties upon his appointment and he should be encouraged to conduct his investigation and find the truth. A person who objects to his investigating Russian interference, potential collusion with Americans and the president obstructing justice is a person afraid of the truth.

As I've said before, there are many reasons why Comey deserved to be fired. Trump firing him in order to end an investigation into himself, which wasn't taking place when Comey was in office... doesn't make sense.

I'm concerned with finding the truth. I want to know if Trump did something wrong. However, I don't want a witch hunt. I don't want to waste time and money, just so the press can keep spinning out Trump-bashing stories about something that they have no evidence of. When did it become wrong to want actual information before drawing conclusions?


The fact that Informant is against a full investigation of the Russian assault on the American electoral process and the potential involvement of the President makes me wonder if Informant loves America as much as he likes to say he does.


I'm not opposed to an investigation into the Russian assault on the American electoral process. And if that investigation turns up evidence that Trump was involved, boot his ass out of office, by all means. But right now, everyone is playing that Dr. Google game, where they read a bunch of random symptoms that sound vaguely similar the the itch they have on their ass, and decide that they have incurable cancer before they so much as schedule an appointment with an actual doctor. It's hysteria, and I'm not going to feel bad for not jumping into that.

If these Trump-hating investigators had some damning information that linked Trump to the Russians, we would know about it by now. They're not great at keeping secrets. Or, they would do their job and go through official channels, in which case they wouldn't need to schedule a clandestine meeting with a NYT reporter every time Trump takes an incredibly suspicious piss.


I love my country. It's the greatest country on the planet. And from where I'm standing, the people who are crapping all over this great nation are the people who are willing to destroy the system that has made us great, just because they don't want to end their truly epic post-election tantrum.

An I don't know what your obsession with Dick Cheney is, but your fanboy drooling over his time as VP is both disturbing and, frankly, inappropriate.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The Red Pill. Anyone seen it?

For those who don't know, it's a documentary made by a woman, Cassie Jaye, who came into the project as a feminist who had read some bad things about the men's rights movement, and she set out to investigate. As she made the movie and spoke with several of the activists, as well as feminists and other people, and as she did research into specific issues and cases, Cassie began to question her own beliefs, and while she still believes in a lot of equality issues, she no longer calls herself a feminist.

The movie has been getting a lot of attention lately, both good and bad (depending on who you're reading/watching/listening to). I happened across an interview with Ms. Jaye, from Australia ( https://youtu.be/xvLsslFEv7k ) which I thought was really frustrating to watch, because the interviewers had refused to watch the movie (despite their comments in the interview, Jaye has proven that the full screener was sent to the interviewers three times over the course of about a month, as well as being available on sites like Google Play, etc), yet they were criticizing her approach to making the movie. She was constantly telling them that she had addressed their points in the film, but they kept pressing the matter as though she hadn't... all without having seen the movie.

I see this all over the place, and not just with politics. People comment on issues, or TV shows, or movies, or articles, all without having actually looked at the piece itself. They base their opinions on preconceptions and third-party talking points, and then argue those opinions to the death. It annoys the crap out of me, which is why I have a general policy against criticizing things that I haven't personally looked into/watched/read/etc. (there is a lot of criticism of The Handmaid's Tale now, but I haven't seen it, so I won't criticize it... but I do plan to sit down and watch it when I get some time. I did the same with Dear White People a while back.)

So, I saw that the movie was available on Amazon Prime. I have Prime, so I decided to take the couple of hours to sit down and watch the movie. I wanted to see what was so scary and offensive about what Ms. Jaye was saying.

The movie is actually really interesting. It says a lot of stuff that I've known for a long time. There's no support for men who are sexually assaulted or who are victim of domestic violence. I've read stories where the police will actually laugh at the men who seek help. I've looked up the statistics on male rape in the past... basically, none of the major points were really news to me. I don't necessarily agree with everything that the men's rights activists say (I have no problem with a policy of women and children first in an emergency, and I don't want women drafted into combat situations... though I probably wouldn't mind them being drafted for other wartime roles. Stuff like that), and I don't know that Jaye did either. However, I found her personal journey throughout the making of the movie to be really interesting. You can see legitimate change coming over her as she actually talks to people, from both sides.

The thing that is annoying is the concept that in order to give an inch to one person/group, you must take away from someone else. This is all over the place in our culture. There are no shades of gray. There is no nuance of opinion. History is often more processed than canned cheese products. I don't buy into this. I don't think that in order to want to help female victims of domestic violence, you must turn a blind eye to the male victims.

There's this thing with the Black Lives Matter movement, where if you don't support #BlackLivesMatter, you are a racist. If you say that all lives matter, or that police lives matter, you are a racist. However, Black Lives Matter isn't a simple sentiment, it's an organization. It's an organization that has proven to be racist, divisive and violent. So while I might believe that black lives matter, I don't support Black Lives Matter. However, that distinction will have me labeled as a racist, alt-right, neo-whatever.

I've even seen this pop up with stupid TV show or movie arguments. It's not just politics.

At some point, the groups, which essentially becomes competing teams, cause more harm than good. Gender equality shouldn't be about supporting one and bringing down another.

An interesting part about the movie was in watching the different approaches that interviewees took. The men's rights people (often considered to be the evil, sexist ones) were basically just fighting for causes like custody rights, support for male victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, and stuff like that. Meanwhile, the feminist interviewees were fighting against the men's rights people, insisting that they were the hateful, sexist ones, while those men never actually wanted to take anything away from women.


You will tell me that the documentary was obviously skewed, and you're right. Documentaries are all skewed, and all have a message that they're trying to get across (though several of the points they made can be backed up with my own experiences and observations). The thing that made this one interesting for me to watch was the journey for Cassie Jaye herself, who didn't come into this planning to change her own beliefs. Her history shows us that she's not some wacky conservative stooge. And I think that ultimately, the point of the movie isn't about men's rights or anti-feminism. It's about what happens when you stop being defensive, and make an honest attempt to understand the other side of an issue (even if you don't agree with them).

You don't have to be anti-women's rights in order to be pro-men's rights. You don't have to support everything these groups say in order to agree on certain points. You don't have to take from group A in order to give to group B. This has always been my point of view, which is why I don't talk about "cops killing black people" as much as I talk about specific cases, or why I don't support politicians as much as I support points of view (and believe me, the republicans are pissing me off plenty right now).

I see a lot of very angry people who are totally incapable of explaining why they're spewing venom and breaking windows. At some point, it stopped being about any real point of view and started being about whose team can scream the loudest.


Anyway, good movie. Definitely more relevant to politics than to a normal status update or random thought, so I posted it here.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Are you god-damn serious? Are you sincerely asserting that the men's rights movement is an effort to cast attention towards male victims of sexual assault? As opposed to what it actually is -- a movement of misogyny and rape culture designed by people who either perpetrate acts of prejudice and violence towards women or feel disinclined to consider how half the population is marginalized and mis-used simply for being born with a different chromosome.

A movement that dismisses and denies the harassment and mistreatment women suffer constantly in order to cast its own proponents as victims. A movement that has been completely exposed as people who hate women trying to achieve social legitimacy but largely deals in threatening to rape and kill women who demand equality. Even for someone who claimed that people who find Trump's racist remarks offensive can't unfiltered conversation, endorsing the men's rights movement is a pretty sad step downward.

And anyone who is proud to not be a feminist is simply sick in the head. To steal from Aziz Ansari, if you believe that men and women should be equal, then you have to identify as a feminist. A medical practitioner who addresses ailments of the teeth can't protest that calling him a dentist is too aggressive and forward a term.

This has got to be a joke. This has got to be a phishing endeavour. Clearly, Sliders.tv's old nemesis, Transmodiar, has hacked Sliders.tv's forum, co-opted Informant's account and posted a message where Informant declares his support for men's right activism and spoken out against feminism. Holy crap, Matt. I realize you were irritated that I would run nonsensical SLIDERS plots past you just to get a dumbfounded reaction to post on the Bboard, but you've gone too far this time.

... I guess I'll watch THE RED PILL next weekend.

729 (edited by Informant 2017-06-25 21:34:42)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, you get an A+ for saying exactly what you're supposed to say.

The problem is that you didn't actually read what I wrote or respond to what I said. You saw keywords, which triggered pre-programmed responses, filled with lots of flashy words and phrases which have probably been put through hundreds of focus groups on Madison Avenue, but which don't really apply to the conversation at hand. You don't have opinions, you have algorithms. And to top it all off, you demonstrated what I actually did say perfectly.

If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I was talking about the fact that people don't even listen to what the other side says, and this is the problem with our culture. What I was saying was that the movie highlighted the fact that you can agree with a little bit of what someone says without agreeing with everything they say. You would have seen that I specifically stated that I don't agree with everything that the men's rights people said in the movie, but I did agree with some of it. (mostly based on years of my own research, not any group website or slogan)


____ from this point on, I'm just responding to you. None of this is even what I was talking about in my original post ___

You also contradicted yourself. If I must consider myself a feminist because I believe that a woman should have the right to work or vote, or whatever, then you too must be a men's rights activist if you believe that a woman shouldn't be allowed to beat the shit out of a man without facing any legal ramifications. If men's rights groups are perpetuating rape culture, then the women who deny the significant number of male victims of sexual assault would also be guilty of perpetuating rape culture.

But of course, rape culture isn't really about all rape against all people. It's about certain kinds of rape, committed against the right kinds of people.

By your own standards, you are a hypocrite. But, good news! By my standards, you're not! By my standards, you don't have to label yourself a feminist or a men's rights activist just because you believe in some common-sense issues that they put on their posters. Neither of these things are philosophies, they are organizations. Much like cults, they use the sensible, common-sense ideas to draw people in, and the next thing you know, they're using you to march in favor of Sharia Law (guess which group did that... seriously, guess). Feminism is just another means by which people can be grouped together, for easier herding. And this is why I'm not a feminist, nor a men's rights activist, nor a black lives matter activist, nor a Tea Party activist, nor a member of any other organization that will pin my name to whichever belief they feel like supporting at any given moment. I don't even belong to a church because I got tired of this crap. I don't even have a real political label... I'm certainly not a republican. I call myself a conservative, but I also have libertarian views on some subjects.

I don't get how liberals can believe in a hundred and fifty genders, but their view of complex issues is so incredibly binary.

No, I'm not a feminist. I don't give a crap what some half-rate comedian declares to be true. Seriously, why are liberals taking all of their life philosophies from comedians these days? Y'all are following the court jester into battle there.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I agree that I said exactly what I should say -- that the men's rights movement is composed largely of men who are upset that oppressed women are finding voices and agency. Upset that abusive men can't as easily get away with the harassment and mistreatment that they have customarily inflicted upon women. This latest attempt at re-branding men's rights as a social justice movement defending the innocent is the equivalent of hiring a serial arsonist to be a fire fighter. A movement based on reclaiming the male privilege of immunity in assaulting women is incapable of addressing the plight of male victims.

Oh, good lord, THE RED PILL's star subject is Paul Elam. I've changed my mind, I don't have time to watch THE RED PILL because I've spent quite enough time reading the words of Paul Elam, a lunatic who spews hate speech such as declaring that all rapists should go free, blaming rape victims for being assaulted and declaring that Asian women must never be trusted and other horrific garbage.

This has got to be a joke, right? Transmodiar, this is you pranking me, isn't it?

I'd just like to add that Informant's views are always welcome here and I don't respond to argue as much as not wanting the internet to think Sliders.tv is entirely a band of alt-right Trump supporters. We're home to lots of strange people including this one crazy person who considers Quinn Mallory a 90s era Jesus and that eunuch who asked us to advise him on his girl problems.

(It wasn't weird that he was a eunuch; it was weird that he would ask US for relationship advice, a proposition that at the time was asking the blind to lead the blind.)

731 (edited by Informant Yesterday 23:12:38)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I agree that I said exactly what I should say -- that the men's rights movement is composed largely of men who are upset that oppressed women are finding voices and agency. Upset that abusive men can't as easily get away with the harassment and mistreatment that they have customarily inflicted upon women. This latest attempt at re-branding men's rights as a social justice movement defending the innocent is the equivalent of hiring a serial arsonist to be a fire fighter. A movement based on reclaiming the male privilege of immunity in assaulting women is incapable of addressing the plight of male victims.

I'm no expert on the whole system or how it works. I'm not a part of it, nor is Cassie Jaye. I know what she spoke to Men's Rights Activists about in her film, and I agree with a lot of it, but disagree with some of it. I also know that there isn't one "men's rights movement", so when you say that it's made up of a bunch of crazies, you're going to have to specify which group you're talking about. I know there's a Reddit group that sounds crazier than other groups.


Oh, good lord, THE RED PILL's star subject is Paul Elam. I've changed my mind, I don't have time to watch THE RED PILL because I've spent quite enough time reading the words of Paul Elam, a lunatic who spews hate speech such as declaring that all rapists should go free, blaming rape victims for being assaulted and declaring that Asian women must never be trusted and other horrific garbage.

No, Paul Elam is not the star subject. You need to stop getting all of your information from angry articles that have obvious bias. Elam was interviewed, but it was just on of many people interviewed. Jaye did not ask him many hard hitting questions, but she also didn't do that with the feminists that she interviewed. She took the approach of letting them speak for themselves, which I think works best for a documentary. It's not a hard-hitting interview.

That said, when it comes to Elam's comments that you mentioned about, one of four things is happening:

1. You are willfully misrepresenting what the man was trying to say.
2. I am looking at the wrong videos/articles written by him (I only looked at two of the three that you mentioned, due to lack of time and my back killing me)
3. You're getting your information about these comments from third or fourth hand sources who are distorting what he said in order to misinform people.
4. This is like one of those optical illusions where we can look at the same thing but see totally different pictures.

In regards to Asian women, the video that I watched with Elam had him responding to comments made by some rather stupid sounding men in his comments section, where they declare that they're going to go get them some Asian women, because they're more submissive. Elam spoke about how there are basic cultural differences when it comes to relationship dynamics in some areas of Asia, which mean that these men might be expecting a 1950's American wife, but that's not what they'll be getting. He also spoke to the fact that those cultures are changing, so these men could very well end up with a radical feminist. And he said that anyone wife that you get from shopping around on the internet is probably going to be a bad idea (typically, we refer to Russian mail-order brides, not Asians, but I guess it's the same concept). The moral to his video was that these people need to stop being stupid and be realistic about women. You find a mate by meeting people and getting to know them.

And in regards to "all rapists should go free" thing... not remotely what you said it was, if the article that I looked at was correct. It was an article discussing how many men have been cleared of rape charges since their DNA could be checked against evidence, and how there are an alarming number of false allegations of rape around the country. There are also laws that are meant to protect victims of rape from further stress, but these laws are sometimes used to prevent relevant evidence from being seen, and often present the man accused as being guilty in the courtroom, despite the fact that he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

He talked about how this is an incredibly complicated subject, but if you are on a jury and can't be sure that you are being given all of the information needed to decide a case, how are you supposed to decide that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

And... that's a good point. Sorry, but it is. We've had a shit-ton of rape allegations that have been proven false, and in most of those cases, the life of the man (or men) accused is still ruined. This is a very, very complicated subject because nobody wants to do more harm to a victim, but we also can't work under the assumption that the person that is being accused is actually guilty until a verdict is reached. Which means that any action taken against the accused in order to shield the accuser is going to be biased.

The article was written with a deliberately startling concept, but it wasn't presented a great option. It was presented as a need for a real examination of this issue to take place, because a lot of officials are more interested in getting a conviction than getting the truth.


So, did I read the wrong article and watch the wrong video? Or did you get your impressions from articles written about the comments? Or do you look at the same thing as me and just see something completely different? Because I'm sure as hell not a supporter of rapists, and I have no dog in this race of feminists vs. men's rights activists. I'm sure there are plenty of loons on both sides. So... I don't get where you're coming from here. If you wouldn't mind making some actual comments about the issues, rather than vague references to things that don't seem to fit what you're saying, maybe I could see your view more easily. (I realize that that sentence could be read as snarky, but I didn't mean it to be snarky)

This has got to be a joke, right? Transmodiar, this is you pranking me, isn't it?

I'd just like to add that Informant's views are always welcome here and I don't respond to argue as much as not wanting the internet to think Sliders.tv is entirely a band of alt-right Trump supporters. We're home to lots of strange people including this one crazy person who considers Quinn Mallory a 90s era Jesus and that eunuch who asked us to advise him on his girl problems.

I'm not alt-right. Nor am I a Trump supporter.

(It wasn't weird that he was a eunuch; it was weird that he would ask US for relationship advice, a proposition that at the time was asking the blind to lead the blind.)

Maybe I should write an erotica trilogy based on that experience...


Or not.