caulfield12

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/get-out-review...-155834435.html Get Out is getting a slew of rave reviews...satire/horror mashup https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/get_out 132 fresh, 0 rotten

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...le-video-canada The 16 year old Canadian girl who brought down Milo...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-no-zombies-...-202728570.html NRA doing its part to unite the country at CPAC.

But was he paid? http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/us/kansas-ol...ting/index.html Indian man shot and killed in Greg's backyard, "get out of my country" overheard by witnesses http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/jak...nntv/index.html Jake Tapper wielding more anti-Trump influence, calls press exclusion un-American

https://www.yahoo.com/news/devos-questions-...-094819537.html DeVos questions whether schools should continue to provide free lunch...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/opinions/tru...tson/index.html Trump spending his political capital on allies http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/tru...efSrc=permalink What other reporters are saying today about colleagues being blocked https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trumps-la...-194409911.html Trump doubles down at CPAC by again attacking media "leaks" without acknowledging truth of information behind it https://www.yahoo.com/news/emboldened-by-tr...-160727871.html While much of the media has been focused on the administration’s campaign against illegal immigration, a rising star among Senate Republicans, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, has been pursuing a parallel agenda: a bill to cut legal immigration in half, an idea long considered toxic in Washington but whose time may be coming around. Perhaps no one in Washington was happier to hear the news than Roy Beck, a cheerful 68-year-old former reporter who founded the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA, and has been waiting for a moment like this for 20 years. Curtailing legal immigration has long been an untouchable subject in politics — an idea pushed by a handful of groups like Beck’s but largely ignored on the Hill by members of both parties. Now the environment has drastically changed, with Cotton, who enjoys access to Donald Trump’s White House, championing the cause, and a president who seems open to the idea. Meanwhile, lost in all the shuffle...something even more insidious.

John Wick Two might have been even better than the first. That was unexpected, two movies in a row of that quality in the revenge violence genre.

Bannon framed much of Trump’s agenda with the phrase, “deconstruction of the administrative state,” meaning the system of taxes, regulations and trade pacts that the president says have stymied economic growth and infringed upon U.S. sovereignty. Bannon says that the post-World War II political and economic consensus is failing and should be replaced with a system that empowers ordinary people over coastal elites and international institutions. The GOP still has no resolution or plan in sight for: 1) Replacing Obamacare (see Boehner's comments about how the GOP can't agree on ANYTHING about healthcare) 2) How to pay for the wall 3) How to pay for the infrastructure bill 4) Where the money will come to offset the losses from tax rate decreases (other than projecting a doubling of GDP growth rates)...the only even somewhat idea so far was the Border Adjustment Tax (Ryan), and that's been pretty much shot down already 5) Bringing back jobs to the "heartland" or interior of the US, simply because it flies in the face of all modern/globalist economic theory 6) How to pay for increased military spending, more boots on the ground 7) How to safeguard Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security as Trump promised word for word at nearly every campaign stop in 2015 Not to mention Trump's cybersecurity czar couldn't even pass a simple background check...which anyone in Washington, D.C., knows is a SERIOUS sign of some dubious or crooked business dealings in his/her past. After all the campaign talk about e-mails/servers and security, you can't even get the person in charge of safeguarding those areas correct after all the time you spent lecturing the country about it?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/paul...ia-trump-235275 Manafort faced blackmail attempt by Ukrainian lawmaker regarding dealings with Russia Media/press much more well-trusted than Trump... http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/22/media/trum...piac/index.html There is also a profound split between college-educated white voters and non-college-educated white voters, with the former trusting the media more (55% to 37%) and the latter trusting Trump more (also 55% to 37%). While white voters are generally split on the trust question, preferring the media by 46% to 45%, nonwhite voters trust the media far more, with 68% expressing trust in the media versus just 18% expressing trust for Trump. .... It also suggests that Trump's attacks on the media -- he recently called them the "enemy of the American people" -- have drawn clear battle lines among the American public. "The media, so demonized by the Trump administration, is actually a good deal more popular than President Trump," said Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

https://qz.com/916382/chinese-president-xi-...ew-world-order/ Meanwhile, for the first time in anyone's life, another country is laying claim to lead the new world order (surely Trumpists say it's only a George Soros-fueled conspiracy theory, see below). https://nworeport.me/2016/12/05/george-soro...ew-world-order/ https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/n...new-world-order Melania and Ivanka's plastic feminism covers up Trump's misogyny http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/opinions/mel...nion/index.html

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/conserva...-044730678.html James O'Keefe threatening to dump a Wiki-leaks style "video" compilation of "spy" recordings inside of CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/dnc...bate/index.html DNC Leadership Council Debate/Contenders...future direction of Democratic Party, and united the two wings Perez appears to be leading, but Ellison (Sanders' bloc) has a large number of votes, maybe both will need the votes of contenders #3-5 to get over the top and win. One of those guys is the mayor of South Bend, IN.

Well, at least Thad is persistent/consistent in his messaging.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 08:28 PM) When it comes to any potential trade of Robertson, Frazier or Quintana the red flags come out when you hear "just take what you can get" or "settle for the best they offer.". We don't have to short change ourselves. Trade partners are dealing because they need to win this season. We don't and so we get what we want or we hold our cards. If we got Severino for Robertson where does that leave our own stud young catcher? Is there really room for two premium catching prospects? I wouldn't worry too much about having TOO MUCH catching talent after the last five years of White Sox baseball. These things usually have a way of working themselves out...and we've always speculated that if Collins' hit tool is good enough, it would be easy to imagine him getting a fair amount of at-bats at DH to rest him from all the wear and tear you take at catcher.

He would fit in as one of the Amish/Mennonite bowlers in Kingpin...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/europe/europ...licy/index.html Can Europe really take the high moral ground on the refugee crisis?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...-adviser-214804 Trump has done two things so far to nearly universal acclaim, the Gorsuch nomination and now McMaster. A close third would probably be Mad Dog Mattis. With all the conflicts brewing in the world (at least half self-inflicted), how likely are the Dems to try to convince a military leader to run on their ticket? Is this something that the left (Sanders/Wellstone) wing of the Democratic Party would even be willing to tolerate? With the lack of foreign policy credentials and military backgrounds from most modern Dems, would you at least be willing to support a ticket with a military leader as the VP candidate? Are you concerned the Trump administration is becoming too militaristic and those experienced generals/military leaders will goad him into engagements that a more seasoned president would have been able to avoid? Or do you follow the theory that Bannon/Miller/Trump are just itching for a way to "prove" themselves and make history by waging a war somewhere? If you look at all these issues like border security, immigration, policing/law & order, Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, China...it certainly lends itself to a credible argument from both sides of the political aisle (fear the military advisors are too strong a presence if you're a Republican, fear from the left that we have to trust the military to serve as a buffer to prevent Trump/Bannon from doing something truly cataclysmic for the world). Another reason is simply the fact that citizenry around the world tends to feel more comfortable with stronger authority (not necessarily authoritarian) leaders in historical eras of uncertainty/peril.

Trump has his (in)famous statement about being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue in NYC in broad daylight and being able to get away with it...talking about pedophilia/sexual abuse/molestation, even jokingly, one of the automatic third rails.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/opinions/dhs...eyes/index.html A nation of immigrants entering a dark chapter http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/tr...unexpected-turn A week before Michael T. Flynn resigned as national security adviser, a sealed proposal was hand-delivered to his office, outlining a way for President Trump to lift sanctions against Russia. Mr. Flynn is gone, having been caught lying about his own discussion of sanctions with the Russian ambassador. But the proposal, a peace plan for Ukraine and Russia, remains, along with those pushing it: Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, who delivered the document; Felix H. Sater, a business associate who helped Mr. Trump scout deals in Russia; and a Ukrainian lawmaker trying to rise in a political opposition movement shaped in part by Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. The “Ukrainian lawmaker,” in this case, is Andrii Artemenko, who’s allied with Putin’s government.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Not to validate what the blind followers are saying here, but I would make a distinction here. I think there is a lot of organic anger that had led to an ease of organization of events like this. I do fully believe that the organization and planning of these events isn't random and that there is a paid work being done at the top levels to keep people angry and engaged through the elections. And how is that any different from the Tea Party or Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994-95? The Grover Norquist Effect as well? Were those all organic or simply manifestations of Koch Industries operatives masquerading as populist movements but professionally planned and funded? The closest you're going to get to that is Occupy Wall Street...because it never had a leadership structure or even an agreed-upon set of policy goals. And a fair amount of the Republican "outrage" has been funded by the insurance/medical/Big Pharma industry exerting pressure behind-the-scenes. 60% of the country being roundly against a president is unprecedented. Yet the polarization of across the board level of support from that 40% is nearly unprecedented as well, especially in "peacetime."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/don...port/index.html An interesting, albeit scary read. These Republicans are now even MORE for Trump than when they voted for him in November. When it came time to vote, Republicans were as loyal to their party as Democrats were to theirs. And now, they are standing solidly behind Trump, even as his approval rating is the lowest of any new president in modern times. Trump's 40% approval rating is 21 points below average for a president finishing his first month in office, while his 87% approval rating among Republicans is second only to that of George W. Bush among all GOP presidents elected in the last 65 years, Gallup reported Friday.

There's no evidence that the Obama administration was anything but caught in a predicament by Snowden and the reporters who dumped all those documents...clearly the government wasn't going to reward them for potentially putting many lives at risk. There's certainly a stronger argument that unfiltered document dump was more dangerous than granting visas to Muslims originating in the seven ban countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald Regarding civil liberties during the Obama presidency, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said, "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."[73] He did, however, raise money for Russ Feingold's 2010 Senate re-election bid,[74] Bill Halter's 2010 primary challenge to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln,[75] as well as several Congressional candidates in 2012 described as "unique".[76] Greenwald is critical of Israel's foreign policy and influence on U.S. politics,[77] a stance for which he has in turn been the subject of criticism,[78][79] which successively elicited some criticism towards those authors.[80] According to Greenwald, the emergence of ISIS is a direct consequence of the Iraq War and NATO-led military intervention in Libya.[81][82][83] Greenwald has criticized U.S. and U.K. involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.[84] He wrote in October 2016: "The atrocities committed by the Saudis would have been impossible without their steadfast, aggressive support."[85] Alan Dershowitz is far from a spokesman for liberals or Obama. Note that quote came from the Washington Times, which is fake news just like the NY Post or NY Observer. From Breitbart's Wikipedia entry On the night of February 29, 2012, Breitbart collapsed suddenly while walking in Brentwood. He was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead just after midnight.[46][47] He was 43 years old. An autopsy by the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office showed that he had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, with focal coronary atherosclerosis,[48] and died of heart failure.[49] He was buried in the Jewish plot at the Hillside Memorial Park Cemetery. His grave is marked with the inscription "Herein lies a giant." Unproven conspiracy theories arose about his death.[50][51][52] The toxicology report showed, "No prescription or illicit drugs were detected. The blood alcohol was .04%. No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected."[49] Bill Whittle, a personal friend of Breitbart, had said that Breitbart had a "serious heart attack" just months before his death.[53] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-poli...N0HI23820140923 Conspiracy Theory #3 D'Souza, a frequent critic of U.S. President Barack Obama, admitted in May to illegally reimbursing two "straw donors" who donated $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the early 1980s. "It was a crazy idea, it was a bad idea," D'Souza told Berman before being sentenced. "I regret breaking the law." Prosecutors had sought a 10-to 16-month prison sentence, rejecting defense arguments that D'Souza was "ashamed and contrite" about his crime and deserved probation with community service. D'Souza, 53, was (instead) ordered by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan to live in a center (like a nicer halfway house), which would allow him to leave during non-residential hours for employment, for the first eight months of a five-year probationary period. Berman also ordered D'Souza to perform one day of community service a week during probation, undergo weekly therapy and pay a $30,000 fine. Where's the smoke, let alone a fire?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 05:26 PM) The bolded is complete and utter bulls***. Let's take the specific example in this case. First and foremost, I'm going to ignore the fact that you seem to think he's unimportant when the President of the United States has tweeted about him personally and when he's editor of the "news source" that the President's closest advisor runs, which makes him newsworthy anyway, but let's just focus on the specific sequence. In December, this person stood up on stage, published personal information about a transgendered person at the University of Wisconsin. After that, although we don't have all the details, some combination of identity theft and threats happened to that person. That person was forced to leave the University of Wisconsin. He has found a creative way around the law. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded room, but he's realized that if he yells the "Fi" and has 10,000 people trained to yell the "RE" part, then he will not be prosecuted for encouraging a riot and when there are 10,000 people who each commit a small portion of the crime, law enforcement agencies will be overwhelmed and unable to prosecute. He is actually hurting people and this is his schtick. It isn't just this case, that's one example, go all the way back to GamerGate and that was his thing - outing people who he believes deserves to be hurt. Hell, that's his literal defense against being labeled a pedophile today, "I'm not a pedophile, I outed people who were pedophiles!" In this thread you have stated "The guy's notoriety has blown up because of young liberal's inability to allow people with differing opinions freedom of speech because the guy is, by their account, a Nazi." In other words, you believe it is a problem when people actually stand up against someone DOING ACTUAL HARM to the lives of people. The problem you choose to call out is not that he is actually hurting people, it's that people stand up and say they don't want harm done to people. A few posts later you then state "Never understood the American ideal of supporting one party and compromising my beliefs on certain issues because of my affiliation to a party and social club." Ok, great. So why exactly did he get your attention other than him being a part of a social club that you felt compelled to defend? Either you had to wait until the person in your social club was hurt or you do not consider the people he hurt before that to be worth your defense. You had nothing to say when he was going around actually hurting people, but the moment his right to paid speaking engagements at a university where he has demonstrated he will actually hurt people in that community was violated, you stepped in to say how inappropriate it was. You were ok with him hurting people as long as the groups he was hurting were not powerful enough for you to be forced to pay attention to it. You criticize a guy for going on Maher's show when Maher said other things and then getting outraged here. Your point is arguably correct. But then you criticize sheep on the left for actually stepping in to defend people who don't have the power to defend themselves. So why is this person worthy of your defense when a person outed for being transgender is not? Why is it such an outrage to you that a community like UC Berkeley would actually step forwards and defend the rights of their underprivileged students to not be harmed, but it isn't an outrage to you when he actually does harm to them in a way that cannot currently be prosecuted? I'm not sure that should be construed as a compliment, although I suppose it was intended to validate him in a way. For example, Tomi Lahren has "blown up" in the last 18 months, but what are the reasons? Well, she's blonde, fairly attractive and can sometimes come across as halfway articulate about the world of politics, but is that what our world is actually coming to...that our standards have fallen so far in terms of expectations of the press/media? At least she's more in the "sheep" category, and it's hard to even accuse her of that, because she's going to make a good amount of money being "used" by the system. It's reciprocal. The same thing applies to Milos or Alex Jones, but in a much more insidious way...in that they're actually dangerous (as pointed out), but they've figured out a way to game the system and come so close to that boundary of being prosecuted (of course, they feel even more protected now with Trump in office)...that they can turn around and cry wolf and use those examples of violence/protest to turn around and raise significant amounts of money in a knee-jerk reaction way (he's being denied his First Amendment rights!) The worst thing for him would be for the crowd to ignore him or listen politely and make not a single comment, or refuse to engage with him...and for no media attention to come about due to that interaction. So it's obvious he's successful at baiting certain groups on college campuses and getting those inflammatory reactions he so craves...which then creates another cycle (rinse and repeat) of being denied the right to speak and then turning around to write another book or fundraise. That's the scary part about any attempt to impeach Trump too early. First, Pence. Second, you have to have the RIGHT case to go forward with, and there's probably 100 different things you could choose, but there's no "smoking gun" as of yet that's compelling enough to get Republicans to cross the aisle. As it stands now, the GOP can use all these protests and town hall disruptions and anti-media conspiracy stuff to fund think tanks for years on end. Of course, so can the the ACLU, so you end up having a state of perpetual warfare and insults being lobbed back and forth, because it sells in the media, more than compromise and working together across party lines.

Trump aides covering up or lying/obfuscating about his amount of time spent golfing... http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/don...ency/index.html

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/11/sorry-trum...-exist-anymore/ We've been over this territory numerous times. Trump isn't bringing "good jobs" back...right now, there are hundreds of thousands of unfilled service jobs that Trump voters look down their noses at. Who do those jobs go to now? Largely legal and some illegal immigrants...just like the value-added tech jobs are mostly going to Indian and Chinese H1B visa holders who are asked to work for 50 cents on the dollar (this one not KW's doing). They have better STEM educations and are willing to work 2-3x as hard. So opportunities will be there under Trump, just not for the people he promised or those who largely voted for him in the Rust Belt. Only the huge MNC's and Top 10% will continue to thrive (and see their investment income skyrocket.)