goDel

voting doens't matter? quite the opposite. trump won the election, and now the us is screwed. matters lots who win elections, i'd argue.

why not sleep through the second half as well?

come on man its about a thoroughly undemocratic democracy...call it an oligarchy if u want cause thats what it is flake caved in cause he had too much to lose in terms of his own wealth the dems and reps are just the same they believe in inequality...its the american way so the repeal of the aca got cancelled why/how exactly?

well, apparently, thanks to you it might be just one guy indeed. and have you called your governors office already? the odds the sheep in the us only get off their lazy arse to go see the new star wars movie (instant gratification for the mentally disabled!), but refuse to see they need to get off their ass to get politically involved....

you're not paying attention? https://stopgoptaxscam.com/

Wiki, first sentence:

Serious question: if you went to Star Wars movies, have you seen the Transformers movies as well? Just wondering what kind of idiots throw money at this cancer. Thanks! :) And when I refer to cancer, I also refer to the Star Wars franchise. Or rather, the entire movie franchise industry. In case you're wondering, this is for an anthropological study where I compare the cinema in the third Reich with the current franchise industry.

:D

This is not about sympathy, but reading if you ask me. Have you seen that facebook picture of the text he posted? It's a couple of posts above this one! He mentions having ptsd from 911 being in the WTC.

I know it's supposed to be funny, but whatever dude. Some guy just put a bullet in his brain.

Well, try it out and see how it works. The bigger the screw up, the more we'll also learn from your mistakes. :) thank god for EU, common sense ;-p

He blamed it on his ptsd. Not just about the allegations if you take his post at face value.

Too early. Way too early. But just enough to say that not all is bad.

and Bannon. Well done!! He should be even more active in politics. Before you know it, he's more "establishment" than his waistline. And ready for a bypass surgery.

Good news! :)

Posting a couple of LOLs. (Moving away from twitter) First, Jared Kushner on his Israeli/Palestinian conflict adventures. Probably me, but I rolled of my chair laughing at the 3 mins mark. Also a rare occasion to see and hear him open his mouth and produce verbal language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxSQEpRn8ZI Almost endearing. And to me, comes across as surprisingly sincere as well. (ergo: the trump government might be like a huge hackathon) And this interview at Fox is equally amusing, imo. Again, rolling off the chair toward the end :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En8sAYHrKEU

My read is there was a conscious effort of people to push the story that there was a revolt (reason: influence Comey to take action on Clinton emails right before the election. which he did, obv!). I believe that was *fake* for the most part. Just a story. Although it might have been ex-agents pulling some strings to push it (True Pundit connections). But revolt is probably too broad a term. If it was actually true the NY department was consciously stalling its actions wrt the investigation of the mails found on Weiners laptop, I'd argue that'd count as a revolt of sorts. But because this is about days or weeks, it'd be hard to prove intent. Or rather, easy to disprove. You need only one person being sick around that time and the entire department might already be covered with an excuse of why it took so long. Not sure why you read Giuliani as pushing the story the FBI was pro-Trump. He literally used the word revolution himself. And remember, even though you might read it that way. Or the entire country might have read it that way, for that matter. If true, the only persons read that would have mattered at that point in time was Comeys. So, if you want to read Giuliani, you might want to consider he's there to send a message to Comey first and foremost. And not the general audience. The general audience was only supposed to be outraged. And the FBI being pro-Trump narrative would really not be relevant. In general, the general audience is mostly there to be outraged. The bigger the outrage, the higher the odds people in government are looking at Comey and the more likely Comey has to act. (yes, this is how politics works. people are considered mostly uninformed sheep who are supposed to be outraged at will! and obviously, politicians play a large role on what's being covered in the media. worse, it's their job to push stories to achieve certain goals. that's why they're elected.)

we'll could go endlessly back and forth without any outcome. i do think his current tweet speaks volumes in a number of ways: - he tends to be ahead of regular media (couple of weeks) - he tends to be on point it's fine if you don't like his threads or trust him. it's a free country. lets leave it at that please.

As Chen also argued, the thing about Abramson is that he does tend to create a dramatised version based on the info/knowledge he has. The way I look at tweet #52 is that those 3 actions are probably standard actions in those circumstances. Standard procedure. Nothing too speculative and possibly even matter of fact. What Abr. does do, is putting those as "assumptions" into Comeys head. I agree with you that is beyond something a normal journalist would or should do. But I see it as story telling around events that were taking place. About the evidence of an anti-hillary/pro-trump revolt: although not covered in the TP thread, he points to an Huffpo article he wrote (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/was-rudy-giuliani-at-the-center-of-an-fbi-trump-campaign_us_585ad14ce4b014e7c72ed993) Also,

Just want this to add: it's a bit odd to argue you don't like Abr. because he's full of BS and doesn't hold to basic journalistic standards, while the BBC invites him to comment (at prime time?). (only one example, obv) Please realise that at that point, you're basically implying the BBC doesn't hold up to journalistic standards with their coverage. And they might as well have invited Alex Jones (=full of BS and doesn't hold to journalistic standards). Or weirder, that your standards are higher than those of the editorial board of the BBC. Those must be some potentially godlike high standards you have there. That doesn't sound like a strong argument and mostly looks silly. Again, no problems with people not being interested in those twitter threads. O, and that piece in Slate was mostly a turd. So, if anyone wants to bring Slate into the BBC point, be my guest. I'd place the BBC higher on the journalistic standards scale than Slate. But if you think you have an interesting argument, I might listen. Might.

anyone also hearing a snare-rush? i'm listening to the longest snare-rush ever!

Is that the True Pundit thing? If it is, I'll admit I read that as an amateur attempt at journalism. It might not hold to the typical journalistic standards. I'd agree with that. But it does fill a hole in current reporting, imo. When I read something like that, I hope some actual journalist will pick it up, do some added research and do a report on it. What it does do though, is creating a timeline. Putting the pieces on a timeline helps creating a context to interpret the larger subject. And personally, the remarks Guiliani made back then always struck me as odd. Giggling to himself on national television he had some connections with former FBI-agents and he knew something big was going to happen. Back then, before the Abramson tweet-fests there was already talk about a mutiny in the NY FBI department, I remember. But somehow it never got the follow-up in general media, as far as I can tell. Without Abramson commenting, it already looked shady. Abramson now build a case of how shady it might be. Which I think could be useful to consider carrying some reality. The fact he's now on the guy behind True Pundit's radar says something as well. If it was complete bullshit, why bother responding? It's not like he's compromised if Abramson was talking BS, right? I appreciate Abramson mostly for his legal commentary. (again his comments on the Eric Prince hearing is where its at) And I'm actually surprised how poorly the counter arguments hold against him in the media. See that BBC interview for example. The "best" counter arguments basically try to personally dismiss Abramson himself (paraphrase "no experience with transition, so you should shut up"). In the end he did agree the most pertinent question was who'd be indicted next. Call it speculation, but going upwards from Flynn requires little imagination of where that might lead. That's almost matter of fact speculation. Sidenote: The thing that worries me is the way Eric Prince played his hearing in congress. He felt safe bullshitting congress. He must basically know he's supported by the GOP. Which is interesting seeing the recent piece on the Intercept about the US government outsourcing their intelligence activities to parties like Blackwater. Looks like he's not even worried about the prospect of the Mueller investigation. You'd almost think Trump's willing to blow-up the FBI and replace it with Blackwater before Mueller finished his investigation. And Eric is in on it. Yeah, this is def speculation. But I'm really trying to understand how someone could behave like that in a congressional hearing. And there's def a pattern of tension between the intelligence agencies and Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's planning to do something like that in reality. Again though, personal speculation.

There's a reason for that. Yup. Mkay, besides disliking speculation I suspect you're not interested in making logical arguments either. There's a reason for no-one connecting the dots? Sure, do tell. Please enlighten me. Apparently I'm too dumb to understand, so let me please bathe in your wisdom. And from a comment that 80% of his remarks is BS, we're jumping to "don't like speculation, only like factual reporting". So, if you've got such high standards of reporting, where does the 80% come from? Was that factual? Done any measurements? I would be actually happy if you could name one example. You didn't, and instead went the "it's all speculation" route. I understand you can't be bothered though. Why would you? The thread about the Eric Prince chat in Congress was pretty factual, btw. (commenting on a transcript) So, I'm guessing that's the other 20%? Also, this anti-trump crowd excitement thing. I guess i don't have the experience with the anti-trump crowd that you have, but personally, this is less about excitement and more about being informed. And I don't like excited crowds either, btw. But that's a different subject. Or, I thought it should be.

80%? like what? Not saying everyone should believe or follow him, but if you have info that makes more sense or a commentator giving more insight into the Mueller research, I'm happy to follow. I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

As a critique to Abramson I like this article better https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/06/people-cant-stop-reading-a-professors-theory-of-a-trump-russia-conspiracy-true-or-not/?utm_term=.8ca23fab932e This Slate thing doesn't prove anything. It jumps off attacking Louise Mensch. Actually the first half goes off on Louise. What has she got to do with Abramson exactly? (O, right somewhere at the end the Abramson et al. blanket is used, so we're supposed to believe they're all equals. Sure and that's because?) Regardless though, using "ATTENTION" to start a tweet is a big "No", I learned. Using logic "If X then Y" is also a "no". O, and in terms of evidence "and I spoke to two Slate staffers with law degrees who found the scenario farfetched" this should basically close the case. Quickly about the Washington post article, or rather the BBC clip link to: The irony is that even though Abramson is supposed to be full of BS, the republican basically acknowledges the importance of the Flynn indictment at the end of the interview. So the logic "if Mueller indicted Flynn only for lying to the FBI instead of other accusations, then this means Mueller has struck a deal with Flynn" is basically confirmed by someone trying to downplay Abramsons argument. If you add the logic Mueller would only deal with Flynn if he could bring valuable information about people higher up the chain of command. There aren't many people on that list, obviously. So the logic holds anyways even though you disagree with Abramson? OK, that's interesting. Obviously, I've used the word "if" a couple of times already, so I'm also talking BS. Hell, I currently wonder how many "if"s are in the climate change report. "If" there are too many, it must be BS as well. If...the irony. Anywho, what I think is interesting currently is the sudden explosion of anti-Mueller propaganda from the pro-Trump media. The anti-Abramson angle is just a side dish. But seems to be part of a larger effort for damage control. The anti-Mueller thing is really worrying. Looks like Mueller is really getting close the people who are convinced they're innocent. Also, the Eric Prince chat in Congress, or rather Abramson analysing the transscript is recommended. Although not for the "blog"-people. Really presents a prosecuters perspective on what happened there. And what kind of people we're dealing with.