US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[benjipwns]

well, it's already using a website, i'm not sure how more advanced in technology you can get than that

[curly]

Gillibrand says she won't take corporate pac money, playing hard for that Bernie crowd. Iirc in the past she was pretty centrist though, which I imagine will be used against her.

[benjipwns]

“I believe the flood of special interest and secret money into campaigns is corrosive and leading to corruption both hard and soft in Congress,” Gillibrand said. “We won't be able to bring down Medicare drug prices, stop companies from outsourcing our jobs or start to rebuild the middle class until we can stem the unlimited influence special interest money applies over politicians.”

Is she admitting to having been corrupted and hindered in her past performance by these donations?

[Nola]

The other labor laws will apply! There will be occasional inspections! It'll be fine!

And listen, if your sharecropper sustainably sponsored immigrant finds the expenses of American society a little more than they expected, perhaps the owners employers can arrange a moderate interest loan program that the sponsor can pay back in installments over time or in exchange for additional labor hours?

[benjipwns]

you guys are no longer allowed to attack me with your heinous lies and slanders, i may be special and your bigotry against the mentally ill is why so many of you are probably considered vile by The Bore experts:

A Duke University history professor recently suggested that many of the conservative and libertarian subjects of her book “seem to be on the autism spectrum.”

Nancy MacLean, author of the controversial book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, made the comments during a February 7 lecture at the New York City Unitarian Church of All Souls, where she was slated to discuss “the roots and agenda of the radical right.”

[RELATED: Imam apologizes for sermon asking Allah to ‘annihilate’ Jews]

She was delivering a presentation on her book’s conspiratorial thesis about the American libertarian movement, which she claims originated with Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan. Almost exactly one hour into the event, an audience member asked her “where his motivations” and ideas came from, and whether those are ideas are “ones of personal greed or…malevolence.”

After praising the interrogator for asking “such a profound question,” MacLean speculated that libertarian views might be the result of autism.

“As an author, I have struggled with this, and I could explain it in different ways. I didn’t put this in the book, but I will say it here,” she answered. “It’s striking to me how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum—you know, people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others, and who have difficult human relationships sometimes.”

“I don’t know, that is speculation,” she reminded the audience, but despite the disclaimer, an audience member later referred to “autistic libertarians” in a question. At another point in the lecture, MacLean also called Trump’s federal judicial appointees “illegitimate.

[curly]

“I believe the flood of special interest and secret money into campaigns is corrosive and leading to corruption both hard and soft in Congress,” Gillibrand said. “We won't be able to bring down Medicare drug prices, stop companies from outsourcing our jobs or start to rebuild the middle class until we can stem the unlimited influence special interest money applies over politicians.”

Is she admitting to having been corrupted and hindered in her past performance by these donations?

The "stop companies from outsourcing our jobs" line is weird to me. I know it's just messaging bullshit, but how exactly are you going to do that? Slashing regulations? Subsidizing corporations? Revising our VERY UNFAIR trade agreements? Putting aside whether it's even possible, it's very ideologically vague.

[benjipwns]

to be fair, she never said she wanted to do those things, just that we couldn't do those things if we wanted to until we do the technically impossible first

because "corporate" PACs hate the middle class unlike labor union and politically-focused (National Right To Life, AmeriPAC, NAMBLA, etc.) PACs who are not "special interest money" which is why she will continue to take their donations for her 50 point popular vote margin Senate campaigns

edit: also, she can do this because PAC donations in general are a drop in the bucket now with SuperPACs existing, the largest "corporate" PAC only gave about $4 million last cycle and was split 40/60 D/R... the Democrats official Congressional SuperPACs by comparison spent a combined $122 million and raised $150 million alone in 2016, Priorities USA by itself spent $133 million and raised nearly $200 million in favor of D/against R's

it's okay though because they would never coordinate with campaigns as that's illegal and they only take money from employees or owners of corporations and not the corporations themselves (which regular PACs have to do anyway...but SuperPACs technically don't)

 

[Mandark]

A Duke University history professor recently suggested that many of the conservative and libertarian subjects of her book “seem to be on the autism spectrum.”

I have no opinions on this which are not problematic.

[team filler]

you guys are no longer allowed to attack me with your heinous lies and slanders, i may be special and your bigotry against the mentally ill is why so many of you are probably considered vile by The Bore experts:

A Duke University history professor recently suggested that many of the conservative and libertarian subjects of her book “seem to be on the autism spectrum.”

Nancy MacLean, author of the controversial book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, made the comments during a February 7 lecture at the New York City Unitarian Church of All Souls, where she was slated to discuss “the roots and agenda of the radical right.”

[RELATED: Imam apologizes for sermon asking Allah to ‘annihilate’ Jews]

She was delivering a presentation on her book’s conspiratorial thesis about the American libertarian movement, which she claims originated with Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan. Almost exactly one hour into the event, an audience member asked her “where his motivations” and ideas came from, and whether those are ideas are “ones of personal greed or…malevolence.”

After praising the interrogator for asking “such a profound question,” MacLean speculated that libertarian views might be the result of autism.

“As an author, I have struggled with this, and I could explain it in different ways. I didn’t put this in the book, but I will say it here,” she answered. “It’s striking to me how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum—you know, people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others, and who have difficult human relationships sometimes.”

“I don’t know, that is speculation,” she reminded the audience, but despite the disclaimer, an audience member later referred to “autistic libertarians” in a question. At another point in the lecture, MacLean also called Trump’s federal judicial appointees “illegitimate.

Jews annihilated

[Tasty]

it's what The La Li Lu Le Lo would have wanted

The La Li Lu Le Lo?

[benjipwns]

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/14/15967788/democracy-shackles-james-buchanan-intellectual-history-maclean

That brings us to Nancy MacLean’s much publicized, heavily praised (in some quarters) recent book on public choice economics, Democracy in Chains, which focuses on the role of Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan. Public choice economics is an approach that asks how special interests can seek “rents,” or income unrelated to economic productivity, by getting self-interested bureaucrats and government agencies to regulate in their favor. It examines the impact of institutional rules on economic outcomes, usually from the standpoint of an assumption that market processes naturally align with the public interest but governmental processes do not.

MacLean’s book, published by Penguin Random House, has been hailed as a kind of skeleton key to the rightward political turn in American political economy by intellectuals including the journalist Jamelle Bouie, who says he came away from the book “completely shook”; the novelist Genevieve Valentine, who says on NPR.org that the book demonstrates a “clear and present danger” to US democracy; and writers at publications such as Slate and Jacobin.

That the book has, quite amazingly, been shortlisted for a National Book Award will only increase its sales and influence.

MacLean, however, doesn’t want to explain how public choice economists think and argue. Instead, she portrays them as participants in a far-reaching conspiracy. She describes how a movement of “fifth columnists” that “congratulated itself on its ability to carry out a revolution beneath the radar of prying eyes” is looking to fundamentally undermine American democracy.

MacLean has argued that the economist and blogger Tyler Cowen has provided “a handbook for how to conduct a fifth column assault on democracy.”

She says that the documents from this obscure archive demonstrate that Buchanan was the secret intellectual architect of the rise of the American right.

she has claimed in interview, is the title of Cowen’s blog Marginal Revolution a signal to the illuminated that Cowen is undertaking a gradual revolution by stealth
...
MacLean has publicly claimed is the case, one might see this criticism as a counter-campaign by “Koch operatives” aimed at discrediting her

shows how out of the loop i am that i didn't even see something this great and its resulting kerfuffle from last year 

secret fifth column cabals organized by two speeches with secret dog whistles to an underground movement of counter revolutionaries, no longer just for the left and the Democratic Party's secret slavery and Uranium One based agenda

[benjipwns]

it's what The La Li Lu Le Lo would have wanted

The La Li Lu Le Lo?

don't bring ur anime in here

[Mandark]

It's no conspiracy, they just know pushing public choice theory means they'll always have a cushy job.

[Tasty]

it's what The La Li Lu Le Lo would have wanted

The La Li Lu Le Lo?

don't bring ur anime in here

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/963472401886363648

[thehunter116]

So it's ok to grab women by the pussy but not punch them.

 

[benjipwns]

So it's ok to grab women by the pussy but not punch them.

 

you're unfamiliar with Omarosa (or Piers), she was going to punch Piers, and I think actually attempted to, not just threaten, wouldn't be her first on-air attempt (plus she killed Michael Clarke Duncan off camera so punching is the least of her threats) and those two immediate identified the other as their nemesis with which to grab Trump's attention and as such, show prominence, only Piers is smarter which is why he won rather than lose three times in the middle of the same reality show with an increasingly favorable judge (four times if you're counting the ongoing The White House Apprentice season, and she could be back for a fifth! the rules are totally crazy this time!)

why Piers continues to defend Trump is beyond me, maybe he's hoping for some executive branch help back into the country or something, he also doesn't understand the Trump-Omarosa dynamic and (didn't on the show), Trump's not going to bash Omarosa no matter what she says about anyone else in the White House (and she's not exactly attacking Trump personally anymore than she has in the past) and he forgets that Trump dropped him like a set of John Podesta e-mails the instant he had troubles that led to him having to leave the colonies and has never defended him on anything outside the show

really the most amazing thing is that more Celebrity Apprentice folks haven't successfully latched onto President Trump, though he got endorsements from darn near every cast member, I thought for sure we'd see Victoria Jackson and Stephen Baldwin legitimately in government positions, Trace Adkins absolutely in some weird position...I assume Rodman is still plenipotentiary to North Korea as he was under Obama

edit: more apprentice-Trump-Omarosa-related ramblings for my fan and a half:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

reminded me to note, Omarosa's advantage with Trump was that she was the first and one of the few rare candidates to identify herself as within Trump's self-image, not his public image or his more realistic image, but the unstoppable juggernaut of a businessman and brand he imagines himself to be, and that the key way to doing that was not blindly sucking up or praising Trump, but ruthlessly attacking everyone else as inferior, blaming them for all your problems and then telling Trump you refuse to be weak like the others want because you're too determined to win, just like Trump

arguably a form of this is what the Joan Rivers-Annie Duke season hinged upon is that they both had figured this out and were playing the opposite sides of it...Marlee Matlin also seemed to identify this and let others get mowed down by Trump rather than the natural inclination to "correct" the record from Trump's imaginary versions, something a few candidates like Meat Loaf and Lou Ferrigno could never comprehend

after the seasons they did, Penn Jillette, Adam Carolla, Arsenio Hall, and Dee Snider all openly discussed on the first twos podcasts that the key was how quickly they recognized nothing but managing Trump's moods mattered and you had to realize when they'd suddenly shift gears and how to tell him "no" in a way that Trump found acceptable, something Adam and Dee were not willing to do, while Penn and Arsenio were willing to find the thinnest compromise they could...Lil Jon and La Toya Jackson also seemed to imply they had figured this out over their two seasons, Lil Jon particularly seemed adept at leveraging his actual abilities against what was likely an accurate read on Trump's perception of him...

I'd suggest Dennis Rodman did the same, but arguably that was also his late NBA mindset as well and a subset of his rebounding skill, on the show he always seemed aware of when and where he needed to suddenly participate actively in a task or lead it after lowering everyones expectations by doing nothing else earlier that he could exploit minimum energy by pre-positioning himself for the rebound...er task suited to his skills

also, Rodman of all people seemed to understand the "client's interests comes first" rule best among most of the candidates on really all versions of the show Alan Sugar's included, often probably because it was also the path of least resistance, just do what they say   (Bret Michaels was hit or miss about this but it's arguably why he won too...Lil Jon was pretty good at this whenever he was a team lead)

the one episode he literally saved the team just by being the only person that season to ask the client what kind of advertisement or whatever they'd like to see, and it turned out they had basically a ready concept that the team could just copy and polish, while usually the teams would blow off the meetings and execute whatever they came up with (and initially Rodman's team looked at him like "there goes Dennis again wasting our time" and Ivanka later pointed out to the embarrassment of everyone else that constantly drunk/hungover Dennis was the only one yet that season to ever bother asking the client what they might want )

[close]

also i realized you were probably referring to the other abuse scandals halfway through writing my original response but knew the forum was craving my apprentice-analysis and didn't stop as they wouldn't forgive me if i had

[I'm a Puppy!]

So it's ok to grab women by the pussy but not punch them.

 

Umm...you're reading it incorrectly, the Trump administration stance is that it's OK to pussy grab, and it's OK to pussy punch. It's just regretable to get caught punching.

[Trent Dole]

you guys are no longer allowed to attack me with your heinous lies and slanders, i may be special and your bigotry against the mentally ill is why so many of you are probably considered vile by The Bore experts:

A Duke University history professor recently suggested that many of the conservative and libertarian subjects of her book “seem to be on the autism spectrum.”

Nancy MacLean, author of the controversial book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, made the comments during a February 7 lecture at the New York City Unitarian Church of All Souls, where she was slated to discuss “the roots and agenda of the radical right.”

[RELATED: Imam apologizes for sermon asking Allah to ‘annihilate’ Jews]

She was delivering a presentation on her book’s conspiratorial thesis about the American libertarian movement, which she claims originated with Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan. Almost exactly one hour into the event, an audience member asked her “where his motivations” and ideas came from, and whether those are ideas are “ones of personal greed or…malevolence.”

After praising the interrogator for asking “such a profound question,” MacLean speculated that libertarian views might be the result of autism.

“As an author, I have struggled with this, and I could explain it in different ways. I didn’t put this in the book, but I will say it here,” she answered. “It’s striking to me how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum—you know, people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others, and who have difficult human relationships sometimes.”

“I don’t know, that is speculation,” she reminded the audience, but despite the disclaimer, an audience member later referred to “autistic libertarians” in a question. At another point in the lecture, MacLean also called Drumpf’s federal judicial appointees “illegitimate.

Jews annihilated

Please be patient with fascists they have autism.

[kingv]

it's what The La Li Lu Le Lo would have wanted

The La Li Lu Le Lo?

Clearly you’re not a patriot!

I’ll necer share the philosophers legacy with you!

[benjipwns]

since deleted due to left-wing pressure bombshell uncovered by Sean Hannity:

PORTRAIT PERVERSION: Obama Portrait Features ‘SECRET SPERM,’ Artist Joked About ‘KILLING WHITEY’
By Hannity Staff - On February 13, 2018

The widening scandal surrounding former President Barack Obama’s official portrait continued to swirl on Tuesday, with shocking allegations the artist included ‘secret sperm cells’ within the painting and once joked about “Killing Whitey” during an interview.

Controversy surrounding Kehinde Wiley’s wildly non-traditional portrait of the Commander-in-Chief broke out within minutes of its unveiling; with industry insiders claiming the artist secretly inserted his trademark technique -concealing images of sperm within his paintings.

“His portraits initially depicted African-American men against rich textile or wallpaper backgrounds whose patterns he has likened to abstractions of sperm. Some of the subjects were famous (rap and sports stars), others not,” wrote the New York Times in 2008.

More shocking were comments Wiley made in 2012 while discussing a recent work that featured a “black woman” decapitating a Caucasian woman; imagery Wiley said was based on the biblical story of Judith.

“It’s sort of a play on the ‘kill whitey’ thing,” he told New York Magazine.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sean-hannity-promotes-then-deletes-bonkers-obama-portrait-secret-sperm-conspiracy-theory

It appears that the whole “sperm” theory originated on—where else?—4chan, where a thread was posted on Monday proclaiming, “Official Portrait of Obama has SPERM on his face!!!” That post just happened to include the same close up of Obama that Hannity used on his site.

[Mandark]

Joke's gonna be on us when the hidden jizz theory is confirmed by Sy Hersh.

[kingv]

Some of Kehinde Wiley’s pictures absolutely have sperm in them. They are not “reminiscent of sperm” they are ”absolutely very clearly fucking sperm swimming around the background” but it would be really obvious if the Obama one did too, it’s not like some Where’s Waldo type sperm, they are literally swimming everywhere.

One other thing I discovered about Kehinde Wiley when I was looking him up after Obama picked him, is that he doesn’t paint the backgrounds. He paints the person, then like ships the painting out to Vietnam to have some third world painter paint the paisleys for pennies. Something about that just really cheapens it to me.

[Rufus]

Yeah, why bother with Vietnman. There should be plenty of desperate art school graduates willing to do it for what it would cost to ship them.

[kingv]

He paints the person, then like ships the painting out to Vietnam to have some third world painter paint the paisleys for pennies.

Are you fucking serious!?

I read it in a New Yorker profile of him from a few years back. They didn’t seem to think it deserved much discussion, which makes me think this is common in high end modern art.

It says something about the commoditization of art, in that this is clearly just a way for Wiley to sell 10 paintings in a year instead of 5.

Owning a Kehinde Wiley is a little different knowing that half the canvas is actually a Son Tung Nguyen.

http://nymag.com/arts/art/rules/kehinde-wiley-2012-4/

[Atramental]

When you realize how much of a business fine art really is you kinda don’t want to bother making anything unless it’s for yourself or friends. 

[Rufus]

Look up Damien Hirst.

[kingv]

Reading the article I shared there (different than the original profile I was talking about), it actually sounds like it’s potentiall even worse than some other dude painting the backgrounds. Like he has multiple studios around the world with 10 artist assistants in each. It makes you wonder if he is actually painting anything at all, or is he just the marketing head of a Chinese art studio.

I’m not going to knock the hustle, though.

[VomKriege]

Painting was already a workshop affair in Renaissance. It is what it is.

[benjipwns]

considerate
1 hour ago
Suspected Russian troll/bot: letters+numbers are the Russkies' favorite algorithm for screen names.

any comment on this claim, thehunter116?

[kingv]

considerate
1 hour ago
Suspected Russian troll/bot: letters+numbers are the Russkies' favorite algorithm for screen names.

any comment on this claim, thehunter116?

They also love to put American flags in their name.

[etiolate]

Just for future reference

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mattis-says-us-has-no-evidence-of-syrian-use-of-sarin-gas/2018/02/02/109f1750-0829-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/963848996925165568

Yasss more fuckery.

Get rid of Kelly already Donald and bring back the Mooch and Amarosa.

Your true friends and MAGA.

[Tasty]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/02/14/warren-addresses-claims-native-american-heritage/0VM3tX88fVxALoyZq9VvvJ/story.html

The New Queen

But even though her speech was planned in advance, Warren was not listed on the agenda. The Republican National Committee on Tuesday morning even blasted out an e-mail with the subject: “Fauxcahontas MIA From Major Native American Summit.”

“Why is she skipping the conference?” the RNC asked. “Maybe it’s because she would face some difficult questions at the summit.”

"Fauxcahontas" jesus christ.

[etiolate]

The Warren jokes are great

can't hate those

[Tasty]

The Warren jokes are great

can't hate those

I absolutely can. The RNC is literally a clown car at this point with no dignity nor grace. It's not surprising seeing who they elected, but it's still a national embarrassment.

It'd be like a DNC email with the headline "Cheetohman ties Border Wall to DREAMers! Literal Nazis in the WH!"

I get DNC emails and they're Dalai Llama speeches compared to the RNC shit-brigade.

[Tasty]

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/13/17010368/florida-special-election-margaret-good

Democrat Margaret Good defeated Republican James Buchanan by a 52-45 margin in a special election for Florida House District 72, marking the 36th state legislative seat Democrats have flipped since Donald Trump’s election.

🌊 🌊 🌊 🌊 🌊

[team filler]

how many have flipped the other way since trump?

[Tasty]

how many have flipped the other way since trump?

See below post.

[Nola]

how many have flipped the other way since trump?

Not many.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2MVeM2K7WgqmJw5RCQbWyTo2u73CX1pI8zw_G-7BJo/edit#gid=2144047916

In party contested races

- 38 seats have flipped from R to D.

- 5 seats have flipped from D to R.


EDIT: Fixed because I can't write.

[Brehvolution]

Nola, I think you have those mixed up. 

If dems only win 1 more seat, I hope it's lyin' ted cruz's.

[Joe Molotov]

I hope Ted Cruz asks Donald Trump to campaign for him, and Donald's like "nah".

[Broseidon]

Just for future reference

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mattis-says-us-has-no-evidence-of-syrian-use-of-sarin-gas/2018/02/02/109f1750-0829-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

He was talking about possible Sarin use post-Khan Sheikhoun, prompted by a new series of chlorine attacks by pro-Assad forces.

You conspiracy theorist dipshit

[Nola]

Nola, I think you have those mixed up. 

If dems only win 1 more seat, I hope it's lyin' ted cruz's.

Haha yep. Did that a bit too quickly.

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

Great article from NPR about why it might be a good idea to deport all illegal immigrants from America.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/13/585398237/

"Mass deportation of current immigrants would do nothing less than cripple American Christianity for generations to come," says Samuel Rodriguez, who prayed at President Trump's inauguration. "If you deport the immigrants, you are deporting the future of Christianity."

 

[etiolate]

Just for future reference

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mattis-says-us-has-no-evidence-of-syrian-use-of-sarin-gas/2018/02/02/109f1750-0829-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

He was talking about possible Sarin use post-Khan Sheikhoun, prompted by a new series of chlorine attacks by pro-Assad forces.

You conspiracy theorist dipshit

Last April, the U.S. launched several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in response to what it called illegal Syrian use of chemical weapons.

Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency.

There were casualties from organophosphate poisoning in both cases; that much is certain. But America has accused Assad of direct responsibility for Sarin attacks and even blamed Russia for culpability in the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy.

Now its own military boss has said on the record that we have no evidence to support this conclusion.

https://www.rif.org/

check it out

[Broseidon]

Read the transcript, smoothbrain https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1431844/media-availability-by-secretary-mattis-at-the-pentagon/

[etiolate]

You left out the rest of that quote

SEC. MATTIS:  That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it.  Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them.  And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. 

We do not have evidence of it.  But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it.  Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

[Broseidon]

You left out the rest of that quote

SEC. MATTIS:  That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it.  Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them.  And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. 

We do not have evidence of it.  But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it.  Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

As I said in my first post, he's talking about recent pro-Assad chemical attacks (which have been chlorine) post-Khan Sheikhoun and whether Sarin was used in those.

So you concede that you were wrong about previous Sarin attacks having not happened and Mattis "admitting" so?

[etiolate]

Except the bits about claiming sarin gas for the 2017 bombing attacks and blamign them on Assad.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/middleeast/syria-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-sarin/index.html

Which you can find all over the web.




By now, you should know what this means for you.

[Nola]

It's continually amusing that the guy who still buys into Seth Rich, Crowdstrike, 4chan conspiracies is lecturing about reading comprehension.

Mattis testified that they have no direct evidence of sarin gas used recently. That is a pretty important piece of context. The context is a discussion about the recent activity of the Syrian government. What they have is people on the ground, NGO's, civilians, militia, troops etc. claiming it has been used. For America to confirm that they need to find direct evidence of its recent use.

Q:  Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were -- the State Department was talking about just a little bit yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas?  Is this something you're seeing that's been weaponized or – just give us a sense.

SEC. MATTIS:  It has.

Q:  It has.  Okay.

SEC. MATTIS:  It has.  We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence.  And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.

Q:  Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?

SEC. MATTIS:  Yeah.

Q:  Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence?  Is that what you said?

SEC. MATTIS:  That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it.  Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them.  And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. 

We do not have evidence of it.  But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it.  Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

Q:  So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood?  I thought I used -- you used that word; I guess I misunderstood you.

SEC. MATTIS:  Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it.  And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking for the evidence.

Q:  Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used -- evidence of chlorine gas weapons?

SEC. MATTIS:  I think that's, yes --

Q:  No, I know, I heard you.

SEC. MATTIS:  I think it's been used repeatedly.  And that's, as you know, a somewhat separate category, which is why I broke out the sarin as another -- yeah.

Q:  So there's credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine --

SEC. MATTIS:  No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically.  I don't have the evidence.

What I'm saying is that other -- that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used.  So we are looking for evidence.  I don't have evidence, credible or uncredible.

There is nothing wrong being skeptical of whether they will have the prerequisite evidence to justify any potential escalation, but like usual you inject things into stories that there is no evidence for and select only sources that infer your own biases. Ironically your Washington Post piece makes the context of this discussion clear, but you looked past it.

[Nintex]

Assange is basically just a 4chan troll. 

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/

[Broseidon]

Except the bits about claiming sarin gas for the 2017 bombing attacks and blamign them on Assad.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/middleeast/syria-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-sarin/index.html

Which you can find all over the web.

 

what are you trying to say here?

[etiolate]

If you're too dumb to figure out where you fucked up then I can't help you. 

All I'd do is point out what you said and how it was wrong.

I already did this.

I'm not kidding about that reading is fundamental link.

[Nola]

It's etiolate, he is going to take misleading Newsweek articles that misrepresent context to advance a conspiracy that Syria never dropped chemical weapons even though we have the fucking receipts. Then go on to lecture people about confirmation bias in twenty other threads.

Its pretty simple, Syria used chemical weapons for years, we have seen the direct evidence of that between two administrations, what we do not have, and Mattis's testimony is speaking about, is recent evidence of its use. We have allegations the government find credible enough to investigate, but nothing to corroborate yet.

For someone that takes faith in the Seth Rich conspiracy, you would think etiolate would understand that?

[Tasty]

If you're too dumb to figure out where you fucked up then I can't help you.

When you're so woke you won't even discuss what you're woke about

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[Nola]

NSFW

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

I'm sure those dying Syrians just thought it would be a real hoot to go out faking the symptoms of Sarin gas poisoning.

Congrats on uncovering the grand deep state conspiracy. I'm sure Seth Rich is gonna be coming up next for you to add to the win column.

Fucking moron.

[Valhelm]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/14/joe-manchin-trump-immigration-plan-408981

Quit it with the purity tests, Bernie Bros. All that matters is electing somebody who has a D next to their name.

[Joe Molotov]

Except the bits about claiming sarin gas for the 2017 bombing attacks and blamign them on Assad.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/middleeast/syria-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-sarin/index.html

Which you can find all over the web.

 

what are you trying to say here?

Hillary emailed sarin gas to Syria.

[etiolate]

The claim is that Assad used Sarin on his country

This claim is made to the 2013 attack and the 2017 attack. No evidence of Assad doing it in either, but Assad being responsible is the argument for getting involved.

The panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Sheikhun on 4 April 2017," the report says, one diplomat told CNN.

The April attack prompted US President Donald Trump to order the US military to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase.

"‎Time and again, we see independent confirmation of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime. And in spite of these independent reports, we still see some countries trying to protect the regime. That must end now," Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the United Nations, said in a statement.

Mattis on the past and present:

Q:  Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?

SEC. MATTIS:  Yeah.

Q:  Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence?  Is that what you said?

SEC. MATTIS:  That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it.  Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them.  And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. 

We do not have evidence of it.  But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it.  Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

Q:  So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood?  I thought I used -- you used that word; I guess I misunderstood you.

SEC. MATTIS:  Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it.  And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking for the evidence.

[/b]


Just because you are fighting information in your head, I'll try to organize this for you. There has been chemical attacks. We do not know who is responsible for the attacks. In very weasely ways, we say its Assad but have no evidence of that. We weasel our way into a military action based on this Assad assumption without having evidence. This is why Mattis is so awkward in that answer.