Or willfully ignored the basics to try to and prove a point. I really got Earl'd this time...

12/14/2017 9:54:04 AM

Anyone see the recent South Park that addresses the taboo of relationships among co-workers?

12/14/2017 10:03:29 AM

Is this Oprah thing real, do people actually think that would be a good idea?

1/8/2018 9:13:11 PM

yes. democrats need someone like trump (rich, popular, beloved) to beat trump

1/8/2018 9:29:12 PM

are all Bernie Bros misogynists?

1/8/2018 11:04:55 PM

once you get down to it, a surprising % of the party are misogynist racists.

1/8/2018 11:13:23 PM

we've been over this already, but Oprah is a bad candidate because she's fat. Being black and a woman is bad enough, but Taft was a one time deal.

[Edited on January 8, 2018 at 11:37 PM. Reason : https://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=648933&page=2#16428366]

1/8/2018 11:32:43 PM

Current president is fat as hell

1/8/2018 11:52:15 PM

everybody gets a free car

1/9/2018 12:01:56 AM

It’s stupid (but not as stupid as Trump) and will die down in a week.

1/9/2018 9:13:35 AM

I still can't imagine anyone beating Elizabeth Warren for the nomination if she runs. Who would even want to run against her?

1/9/2018 9:05:25 PM

^ ugh I like her policies but don't think she has the charisma to win a general.

[Edited on January 9, 2018 at 9:15 PM. Reason : Shouldn't we be done with old white ladies for a minute?]

[Edited on January 9, 2018 at 9:17 PM. Reason : Why do u think Warren would have a lock on the nomination? ]

1/9/2018 9:15:19 PM

maybe he knows who the party insiders have already picked as the nominee

1/9/2018 9:19:12 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/10/18/early-2020-poll-of-new-hampshire-finds-sanders-biden-warren-on-top/

1/9/2018 9:30:10 PM

Quote :

"ugh I like her policies but don't think she has the charisma to win a general"

I was present to hear her give this speech last month, and she was fantastic. I don't think she's lacking charisma at all.

1/11/2018 7:55:44 PM

she became known after a series of television interviews

kind of easy to make the argument that her charisma carried her to a senate seat

1/12/2018 1:21:41 AM

i don't dislike warren, but i'm really hoping the democrats can find a non-septuagenarian candidate

1/12/2018 8:55:49 AM

Also, we gonna talk about USA RIGHTS? because democrats could have killed that if they were credible

1/12/2018 9:31:22 AM

What the fuck is going on with Glenn Greenwald lately? It’s borderline absurd reading his timeline recently.

1/16/2018 8:05:05 AM

is that post in regards to his tweets about manning?

1/16/2018 9:16:57 AM

Generally yes. He is right about Schiff, et al but this Manning thing is just bizarre. I get that he’s trying to be somewhat sarcastic to those who said anyone who didn’t vote for Clinton was a msoygnist but it’s just over the top.

He’s been really ornery since it was apparent the Russia thing wasn’t just an excuse for Clinton.

1/16/2018 9:41:21 AM

the 18 democrats in the senate who voted with republicans on section 702 need to be primaried

1/17/2018 9:27:25 AM

What is wrong with Section 702?

Quote :

"Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorizes the Intelligence Community to target the communications of non-U.S. persons located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. A key anti-terror tool that has helped to thwart numerous terror plots including the 2009 conspiracy to bomb the New York City subway, Section 702 operations are subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches of government. "

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2017_section_702_fact_sheet.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/updated_setting_the_record_straight_on_section_702.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/updated_usp_fact_check.pdf

[Edited on January 17, 2018 at 9:46 AM. Reason : a]

1/17/2018 9:45:19 AM

us liberals like civil liberties, you wouldn't understand

[Edited on January 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2018 2:01:13 PM

Ah, and which civil liberties of Americans are being violated here?

1/17/2018 2:31:32 PM

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa

1/17/2018 2:46:16 PM

Quote :

"Despite the fact that the law is not supposed to be used to target Americans, the government has been doing just that for years."

Quote :

"Once the government collects vast amounts of information — including emails, text messages and other communications — under Section 702, that content is stored in databases for years at a time. FBI, CIA, and NSA officials routinely search through this vast trove of data for information specifically about Americans, even though these communications were all collected without a warrant. Information found through these “backdoor searches” can be used to prosecute Americans for crimes, even if they are not related to national security."

1/17/2018 3:04:46 PM

I was under the impression there was some sort of change or set of revisions to these aspects of 702 when this was passed. Was this instead simply passed as it formerly was?

Nonetheless, was it just the Snowden leaks that implied Section 702 was being abused, contradicting the PDF links in my post above? When I read the ACLU site and compare it to those memos I'm not sure what the alarm is about.

[Edited on January 17, 2018 at 3:20 PM. Reason : a]

1/17/2018 3:13:07 PM

it's not just about snowden, no, but that is when we learned the scope of the problems

here is the latest news that my post was about:
Members of Congress Just Voted to Give the Trump Administration Greater Spy Powers
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/members-congress-just-voted-give-trump

[Edited on January 17, 2018 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2018 5:03:05 PM

Okay I think I get what the big issue is here. It's pretty interesting, really. I'm not sure how I feel at the moment. I need to look up some of the points ACLU made regarding "100,000" people targeted, etc. In one of those defensive memos it made a good point regarding police not having to ignore a crime or evidence of another crime when executing a search warrant predicated on an entirely different crime.

1/18/2018 11:36:25 AM

RIP any hopes for a blue 2018:

GOP goes on offense with 20-week abortion vote
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/370992-gop-goes-on-offense-with-20-week-abortion-vote

1/30/2018 10:08:14 AM

are the democrats planning on running joe kennedy?

1/31/2018 9:38:56 AM

Lol, that’d sure resonate well with... New England voters and literally no one else.

1/31/2018 10:07:22 AM

Might snag a few voters looking for candidates under 80.

1/31/2018 10:36:44 AM

Personally, I would crawl across broken glass to cast a ballot for him if the other option is Trump.

1/31/2018 10:44:38 AM

From my understanding it's now understood in Washington that whoever you pick to give the SOTU rebuttal doesn't benefit from it, so you now intentionally don't pick anyone who might be running for pres next time around

1/31/2018 11:10:07 AM

^^ True, but I really don't want a slate of primary candidates (or a nominee) whose chief qualification seems to be "I'm not Trump." It's a trap I desperately want to avoid.

[Edited on January 31, 2018 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ^^]

1/31/2018 11:11:13 AM

Agreed.

1/31/2018 11:15:24 AM

If the Democrats are going to anoint anyone this time around, it should be Sherrod Brown. Who knows if he actually wants to run though. Otherwise just have a normal competitive primary with names like Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, Garcetti, and sure, why not Kennedy. Warren and Bernie will probably run too, maybe even Biden. I don't see the olds lasting very long though, people are going to want someone younger.

1/31/2018 11:29:11 AM

Sure you don't want Hillary to run again?

1/31/2018 11:30:47 AM

“We stand with dreamers! But not if it gives Republicans a win.”

Just take your fucking treat and eat it

1/31/2018 11:35:38 AM

You mean a Republican win beyond all the goodies in Graham-Durbin and the alleged $15 billion for wall funding that Schumer later offered Trump?

1/31/2018 12:02:10 PM

So if Schumer already offered funding for the wall, why turn down Trump’s proposal which offers citizenship to nearly 3x as many immigrants as Graham Durbin?

Because it’s Trump’s proposal, and it tightens down legal immigration (which most people want). It’s a win for Trump. The Dems fucked this one up badly.

1/31/2018 12:30:16 PM

I still can't believe this wall-thing is real.

1/31/2018 12:37:55 PM

Democrats completely capitulated to Republicans on DREAMers, and now the president responds with a Stephen Miller fog-horn dog whistles about American's being "dreamers too." Every reliable outlet is now saying that Democrats will not threaten another shutdown over dreamers, and are even entertaining funding for a dumb-ass fucking wall. Helluva compromise, Democrats.


Democrats had a chance to play hardball to defend a voting bloc that they'll need to win in future elections, and they instead allowed Republicans to scapegoat them, and, eventually, disenfranchise them via deportation and intimidation. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

YOU CANNOT WIN future elections by allowing your opposition to shrink your voter base. Deportation and criminalization of minorities IS VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Stop reading "polls" about what battles are politically popular in the moment, and start recognizing the very imminent threat of the fascist ideology emanating from your opponents.

1/31/2018 1:14:58 PM

^^^because he arbitrarily increased wall funding by 2/3rds over the original offer (a majority of the Dems were already crucifying Schumer for the original offer, see ^), and "tightening" legal immigration is a bit up on the air, depending on how they work out the details, it could cut overall legal immigration by 1/3 to a 1/2. That's a little more than just tightening IMO.



[Edited on January 31, 2018 at 1:20 PM. Reason : arrow]

1/31/2018 1:16:18 PM

I don’t even understand how you can compromise with a guy who lies and moves goalposts as often as Trump. I’m fine with compromising on some issues with the GOP but having Trump be a part of it is just pointless.

[Edited on January 31, 2018 at 1:21 PM. Reason : A 44% reduction in legal immigration would be an economic disaster but Trump is ignorant, so...]

1/31/2018 1:20:33 PM

Moving the goalposts and forcing your opponent to compromise has been the political strategy of Republicans for our entire lives.

Democrats fall for it every time because they are the Washington Generals of politics.

1/31/2018 1:22:19 PM

^a handful of months ago you were the leading voice on this board demanding that Democrats stop playing identity politics and instead run on concrete populist economic proposals.

Now you're demanding democrats burn down D.C. if they can't win every alien in the country the right to vote.

1/31/2018 1:30:17 PM

Dude, how many times you gonna mis-represent my position on this?


Do you not see the giant overlap between low-wage working class solidarity and minority rights?

1/31/2018 1:36:49 PM