TRUMP: Yes, He Even Branded A MAGAthread

[Gauthier]

The guy Trump picked to chair the FCC wants to dismantle net neutrality? I wonder how many meme addicts are going to appreciate that irony, assuming they're not drugged up on the latest irony?

now the ISPs will charge 9000 dollars to get the evil MSM news media at one bit per hour

People will actually miss the days when AOL was the cheapest and fastest service around.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

now the ISPs will charge 9000 dollars to get the evil MSM news media at one bit per hour

People will actually miss the days when AOL was the cheapest and fastest service around.

I know I will.

[Grinning Dragon]

now the ISPs will charge 9000 dollars to get the evil MSM news media at one bit per hour

People will actually miss the days when AOL was the cheapest and fastest service around.

Hmmm, I don't think it would be much of a miss other than a good one, aol back then and still is a joke and sucks.

[The Pris0ner]

Trump's picks so far have been just scary. Seriously. It's like he went out of his way to make sure he got enough deplorables in there.

The public wanted a racist meme for President and now the country will reap what it's sown next year.

A bitter harvest

[New Werpland]

"Fake News"

If you're a GG supporter, you'll recognize a coordinated narrative when it shows itself. The newest narrative now is for them to discredit the sites that don't toe the establishment line.
Variety: Obama Chimes in on Fake News Phenomenon, Warns It Could Weaken Democracy
PBS: How online hoaxes and fake news played a role in the election
NYT: Fake News on Facebook? In Foreign Elections, That’s Not New
The Verge: Obama criticizes the spread of fake news on Facebook
Vox: The top 20 fake news stories outperformed real news at the end of the 2016 campaign
Vice: Facebook’s fixable fake news problem
Salon: “People are definitely dumber”: Thanks to Facebook, a viral fake-news writer is making $10,000 a month
CNN: How to fix the fake news problem
Us Weekly: Fake News Outperformed Real News on Facebook During Run-Up to Election Day
Politico: Obama: We must guard against fake news
Mashable: Fake news has gotten so bad Obama had to weigh in
Mashable: Did a fake news writer hand Trump the White House?
The Guardian: Fake news clampdown: Google gives €150,000 to fact-checking projects
NPR: From Hate Speech To Fake News: The Content Crisis Facing Mark Zuckerberg
USA Today: Report: Fake election news performed better than real news on Facebook
CBS: Facebook fake news creator claims he put Trump in White House
CBS: Fake news spurs Trump backers to boycott PepsiCo
Theres llike 30 more articles like these that are exactly the same, I just got tired of linking them all.
I've been following shit like this for a while, and this is the single most obvious coordinated narrative I've ever seen from the media. "Fake News" is a term that wasnt used once in the lead up to the election, and then all of a sudden, we get 30 different outlets posting the same shit on the same day. This is "Gamers are Dead" on steroids, they are using "Fake News" as a way to attack any media outlets that did not toe the establishment line. If we allow this to happen, then for example, any articles or sites that are pro-GG will just be labeled fake news.
I just searched "fake news" on /r/politics. 50 hits on it in the last 14 days, once you get past where the narrative initially popped up, there were only 50 hits on the term over three years. Do they actually think they will fool anyone with this?

Gamergate post.

If the term Fake News gets traction, particularly with traditionally in liberal spheres, its only a matter of time before orgs like Wikileaks get labelled fake news, same way they've abused other terms to try and stifle dissent (Such as within gamergate.)

THIS is what fake news looks look:
http://i.imgur.com/fsMzsS8.png

Don't buy it. Don't support this attack on their competition. Whether or not you think fake news is a problem or not, it is absurdly obvious that the people to decide what news is fake or not shouldn't be mainstream journalism.

That's the slippery slope fallacy. Wikileaks isn't even "their competition," in this context that would be Your News Wire or something.

Yes media is biased, that's why most of us try to get information from multiple credible sources.

People don't seem to be following your suggestion there though.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/nytimes-subscription-rise/

[Ebliania]

"Fake News"



Gamergate post.

If the term Fake News gets traction, particularly with traditionally in liberal spheres, its only a matter of time before orgs like Wikileaks get labelled fake news, same way they've abused other terms to try and stifle dissent (Such as within gamergate.)

THIS is what fake news looks look:
http://i.imgur.com/fsMzsS8.png

Don't buy it. Don't support this attack on their competition. Whether or not you think fake news is a problem or not, it is absurdly obvious that the people to decide what news is fake or not shouldn't be mainstream journalism.

That's the slippery slope fallacy. Wikileaks isn't even "their competition," in this context that would be Your News Wire or something.

Umm yes some media is biased, that's why people try to get their information from multiple credible sources.

Clinton controls every single media outlet, that's why Infowars is the only reliable source.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://youtu.be/oUrXi-WLMmc

Worth listening to imo.

Bill Burr on the state of the election.

[Arlenton]

Me? Depends on what he does.

If the USSC decides they are legal, then they are not legal problems, they would be completely legal regardless of what either of us think.

Which is why we have the right to vote, to put people in the government to do what we approve of. If a sufficient number of voters are racist/socialist/moderate, then we will have racist/socialist/moderate policy.

He's already done them. I've given you a (partial) list. Are you saying that you would have no objections whatsoever to him arresting people for being black, so long as it wasn't technically illegal?

No, I would not like that. But what I am trying to say is that if the USSC and congress decided it was legal, then he could legally do it. I think this debate started when someone said Jeff Sessions isn't qualified to be AG because he is "racist", what I am arguing is that his alleged racial bias does not disqualify him from the job.

Would hypothetical Senator John Doe of Iowa be unqualified to serve as Attorney General because he is a pro-choice? No, he wouldn't be.

[Arlenton]

I'm talking about the Republican advantage in midterms, which is kind of the reason the GOP controls the House by the margin that it does.

And I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

[The Pris0ner]

And I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

Exactly when was the last time that happened?

[Salandriagado]

And I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.

He's already done them. I've given you a (partial) list. Are you saying that you would have no objections whatsoever to him arresting people for being black, so long as it wasn't technically illegal?

No, I would not like that. But what I am trying to say is that if the USSC and congress decided it was legal, then he could legally do it. I think this debate started when someone said Jeff Sessions isn't qualified to be AG because he is "racist", what I am arguing is that his alleged racial bias does not disqualify him from the job.

Would hypothetical Senator John Doe of Iowa be unqualified to serve as Attorney General because he is a pro-choice? No, he wouldn't be.

So in other words, you have entirely failed to address the actual point that was made, and have been rambling on a completely irrelevant sideline for the entire discussion. Care to actually address the point?

[The Pris0ner]

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.

No, I would not like that. But what I am trying to say is that if the USSC and congress decided it was legal, then he could legally do it. I think this debate started when someone said Jeff Sessions isn't qualified to be AG because he is "racist", what I am arguing is that his alleged racial bias does not disqualify him from the job.

Would hypothetical Senator John Doe of Iowa be unqualified to serve as Attorney General because he is a pro-choice? No, he wouldn't be.

So in other words, you have entirely failed to address the actual point that was made, and have been rambling on a completely irrelevant sideline for the entire discussion. Care to actually address the point?

Come to think of it, Trump branded MAGAthread is actually a rambling irrelevant sideline perfectly suited for a bunch of guys standing out of bounds.

[Arlenton]

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

Exactly when was the last time that happened?

1820 I think?

[Arlenton]

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.

Uhh... Congress has elections every 2 years?

[Farnhamia]

Exactly when was the last time that happened?

1820 I think?

1824. It's why Jackson is always scowling.

[Socialist Nordia]

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.

Uhh... Congress has elections every 2 years?

Yep. House of Representatives terms only last 2 years. Senators have 6 year terms, but they each are up for reelection in different years, so there are some senate races every 2 years also.

[AiliailiA]

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.

Uhh... Congress has elections every 2 years?

In the case of a House contingent election (of the President), it's the newly elected House which decides. Not the one sitting from the mid-term election.

Though they're not much different in this case. Dems won six seats from Republicans, but lost two others, for a net change of 4.

[Arlenton]

That doesn't make sense, it has everything to do with it. Beign the party that has demographics that vote consistently every 2 years, as opposed to every 4, gives you a perk of being able to decide the President if no one were to get 270 EVs.

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.

No, I would not like that. But what I am trying to say is that if the USSC and congress decided it was legal, then he could legally do it. I think this debate started when someone said Jeff Sessions isn't qualified to be AG because he is "racist", what I am arguing is that his alleged racial bias does not disqualify him from the job.

Would hypothetical Senator John Doe of Iowa be unqualified to serve as Attorney General because he is a pro-choice? No, he wouldn't be.

So in other words, you have entirely failed to address the actual point that was made, and have been rambling on a completely irrelevant sideline for the entire discussion. Care to actually address the point?

I did? What is the point, since I seem to be missing it? I thought the point was whether or not Sessions was unqualified to be AG because he is "racist", and I do not see how he is not, so I gave my reasoning behind it. My point being, his personal feelings or beliefs, or the feelings or beliefs of any others, do not disqualify them from being AG.

[Arlenton]

Uhh... Congress has elections every 2 years?

In the case of a House contingent election (of the President), it's the newly elected House which decides. Not the one sitting from the mid-term election.

Though they're not much different in this case. Dems won six seats from Republicans, but lost two others, for a net change of 4.

Gerrymandering is a reason behind why the Republicans have an invincible House majority, the 2010 midterm election is how they managed to get the gerrymandering done. If it was the Republicans who sat out midterms, at the same level Democrats did, they may not have a House majority, and therefore would not be able to elect a Republican president if no one got 270 EVs.

[Senkaku]

No it doesn't. Because only the ones every four years have any say in the matter.



So in other words, you have entirely failed to address the actual point that was made, and have been rambling on a completely irrelevant sideline for the entire discussion. Care to actually address the point?

I did? What is the point, since I seem to be missing it? I thought the point was whether or not Sessions was unqualified to be AG because he is "racist", and I do not see how he is not, so I gave my reasoning behind it. My point being, his personal feelings or beliefs, or the feelings or beliefs of any others, do not disqualify them from being AG.

It may not legally disqualify him, but opinions and beliefs that run counter to the law and are generally divisive and against the promotion of national harmony (like "blacks aren't equal" or "civil rights are Commie BS") should be something that should have been taken into account when considering his suitability for the post.

[The Pris0ner]

Exactly when was the last time that happened?

1820 I think?

Nope, Farn says 1824.
Either way it looks like the Infinite Improbability Drive is needed for that fat chance.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Vice-President Elect Pence Booed by audience as he takes his seat at a Broadway performance of Hamilton: An American Musical

[Arlenton]

I did? What is the point, since I seem to be missing it? I thought the point was whether or not Sessions was unqualified to be AG because he is "racist", and I do not see how he is not, so I gave my reasoning behind it. My point being, his personal feelings or beliefs, or the feelings or beliefs of any others, do not disqualify them from being AG.

It may not legally disqualify him, but opinions and beliefs that run counter to the law and are generally divisive and against the promotion of national harmony (like "blacks aren't equal" or "civil rights are Commie BS") should be something that should have been taken into account when considering his suitability for the post.

His options may run counter to the current law. The newly elected government will determine if his actions run counter to the law and make new laws until after the next election. Past laws may be overturned and new precedents set.

Though I' really doubt he is the KKK bogeyman many say he is.

[The Pris0ner]

1820 I think?

1824. It's why Jackson is always scowling.

I believe his Mrs. got the early nineteenth century equivalent of the slut shaming treatment from his opponent. Such a pity.

[Bakery Hill]

Vice-President Elect Pence Booed by audience as he takes his seat at a Broadway performance of Hamilton: An American Musical

Maybe they were just booing the musical?