The Muller Report found 'Russiagate' to be based in fact. It was demonstrated that there were inappropriate contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia, which was shown to have interfered with the 2016 election. Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopolous, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Jeff Sessions, and more were all shown to have contacts with Russians?
The Mueller Report was such a joke that Mueller himself, when testifying about it, publicly to congress, said he had never heard of "Fusion GPS", which was the primary company involved in supposedly uncovering the key evidence. You couldn't put that into a comedy film, because people would say it's too ridiculous even for a comedy film. Straight out of Idiocracy.
You mean the conspiracy that everyone, CNN included, thought had teeth at first, but then realized it didn't and shifted their reporting accordingly? That one?
Unless you can show me where, this year, CNN repeatedly said Trump shouldn't be elected because he explicitly colluded with Russia in 2016, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.
The fact they gave up on the Russiagate conspiracy after a while doesn't obviate them pursuing it because they "thought it had teeth" (it didn't) or because the conspiracy theory was believed by "everyone" (it wasn't).
The one fact that showed the entire Russigate investigation was purely a hoax was when Mueller testified before Congress, and someone asked him a question about "Fusion GPS" and Mueller literally claimed he had never heard of that organization before. It proved Mueller to be either 100% completely senile or lying, because that was the KEY organization involved in the KEY document for the ENTIRE case. lol. Unbelievalble.
My gut instinct is that he'd sworn to the Clintons years before that he'd never publicly talk about that firm.
CNN, and countless other outlets, thought there could be teeth there at the beginning. They reported as it went along, and as we found out via Mueller's investigation, there wasn't much to the claims at all, save for a couple of minor tidbits. As it happens, CNN, and countless other outlets, have since reported on the fact that most of it turned out to not be true.
That's about standard for how most media organizations handle shit, right-wing outlets included.
And please, I don't want to hear any arguments along the lines of them being "not real conservatives" or "not real republicans". Both of us know who these people voted for, so just leave it at that.
Not that I'm saying conservatives are nazis. I'm not. But I am acknowledging the reality that neo-nazism is real, does exist, and has a foothold exclusively in the American right.
Are you sure that referring to an event from 8 years ago as an example of a much more common phenomenon is in good faith? Your second example doesn't specify exactly how large the gathering was, but from the context of the article it sounds like it was maybe a dozen people. What threshold are you using for "much more common"?
I haven't watched it, so maybe it's good, maybe it's not.
From everything I've seen, this type of stuff is much, much more common now than it used to be. I think we all know that, you included. I'm getting skeptical that you, and the other commenter, are doing this in good faith.
From my perspective, and the perspective of everyone I know, this is obvious. If you're not seeing it that's very strange to me.
> And before anyone says, "well you call everyone neo-nazis!" Erm, self-proclaimed neo-nazis. They call themselves that.
You should watch the video before posting a link. Proud Boys don't call themselves neo nazis. Other parts of the video touch on stats about violence from who knows what source - left or right - and then touches on people "storming the capital" and "insurrection". So, nothing real or concerete and in particular nothing to do with neo nazis.
You're very quick to accuse others of not being in good faith.
If you wave a Swastika flag, you are a neo-nazi and it's self-proclaimed.
> So, nothing real or concrete and in particular nothing to do with neo nazis
When you wave Swastika flags you are a neo-nazi.
On Jan 6th, there were multiple Swastikas, and you can see it in the pictures and videos.
> You're very quick to accuse others of not being in good faith.
Yes, because you're not being in good faith. What I'm saying is painfully obvious that even small children can put the pieces together. If you can't, or won't, you're either unbelievably stupid or just playing stupid. Luckily for you, I am generous, and so I'm assuming you're not actually stupid. You're welcome.
2. You don't actually care because you're playing stupid. I know you know what I'm talking about, but by your own self-prescribed idiocrasy you will act as if it's your first day on Earth.
I have no more patience for people who are wrong, know they're wrong, but continue to be wrong for the fun of it. It's not fun, it's sad and pathetic. I'm not your therapist here to force you back into reality.
The fact of the matter is there are modern neo-nazis and they largely gather at alt-right or conservative events. I'm not making any judgement past that, so do whatever the fuck you want with that information, I don't care.
No. You told everyone to “look it up”. I have seen to evidence that nazis are more popular now than 20 years ago and that’s obviously quite a substantial claim.
> I have no more patience for people who are wrong, know they're wrong, but continue to be wrong for the fun of it.
Doesn't it tell you something that the most famous example of your case is from 8 years ago? If it was so much more common you'd think there would be many other easily referred to examples. I haven't seen the PBS video but the headline is "far-right violence", and there was plenty of that in the media in the 90s too. The boogeyman back then were "far-right" militias rather than the more fashionable Nazis you hear about these days.
All this is beside the point, because this violence was not condoned by Republican party officials. You could make a case for Jan 6th though, and then I'd point to the riots of 2020 on the other side. Both sides have their extremists.
> Doesn't it tell you something that the most famous example of your case is from 8 years ago? If it was so much more common you'd think there would be many other easily referred to examples
There are, feel free to look them up. I'm not here to convince people who willingly play stupid. You know what I'm talking about, and I know you know what I'm talking about, so we're on the same page.
> The boogeyman back then were "far-right" militias rather than the more fashionable Nazis you hear about these days.
It's not a boogie man when people wave Swastikas. They just are. I don't give a fuck what you do with that information, I'm just telling you it's happening.
> Both sides have their extremists.
Why is it that any time somebody tried to remind people of obvious realities conservatives get so incredibly defensive and weird?
I never said anything about the left. I don't know why you're talking about them, and I also don't care. Fix the neo-nazi problem or don't, and if you wish to stop being told about it then get rid of them. I'm not the one planting neo-nazis at conservative rallies. The left isn't planting neo-nazis at conservative rallies. You're blaming the wrong people.
If the simple and factual reality of the situation upsets you then I can't help you. In fact, nobody can. So remove yourself from the conversation, as evidently there is no solution. So why waste all of our time?
I don't think you're being very charitable. I'm not playing dumb, I just don't think you've made your case, and "trust me, it's happening" is not much of an argument.
The solution to this is therapy, to help solve the delusions you've built. I can't help you with this, but I think there's medication out there. Figure it out.
I'm trying this X64 image with UTM (a newer and very minimal virtualization framework that uses what's built into OS X) on a 2024 MBP now. It seems to be working.
I don’t think it’s fully returned to the level it was at when the episode aired (I forget the exact episode so I can’t say for sure), but you do have a point.
Certainly anyone who bought Solana after it crashed did very well:
Week before FTX crash it was 24, just before the crash (FTX crash happened after Breakpoint where Google announced they were running Solana validators and Meta added Solana support to Instagram) it was 36, it crashed to 8.
You can easily compare the civilian/combatant death ratio in the Israel / Hamas conflict to any other recent war, or alternatively look at the population growth of Gaza since Israel has left, to confirm this is false.
> You can easily compare the civilian/combatant death ratio in the Israel / Hamas conflict to any other recent war, or alternatively look at the population growth of Gaza since Israel has left, to confirm this is false.
I'm not understanding how the population of Gaza is supposed to disprove the fact that the NYT made up fake stories. Please enlighten me?
It’s irrelevant because reaching out to shadow banned companies does not seem like a rational thing for Google to do and and while we may dislike Google they do at least seem rational.
I initially read this article with sympathy, but something isn’t adding up
And that's exactly the point: How do you invite "shadow-banned" site owners specifically, without stating why or how this select group has been identified (and denying that anyone's shadow-banned)? This is an obvious question that's ignored by the article.
So azure was a hit and Office moving to a saas model was a hit.
Balmer lost: the most popular consumer operating system, the most popular web browser, the most popular media player, the most popular instant messaging platform.
You can melt a tablespoon of butter and toss a bunch of vegetables in it, and it will taste delicious. But it only "cost" 100 extra calories, which is nothing. So go ahead and eat an extra serving of carrots, broccoli, green beans, lettuce, radishes, etc. You are extremely unlikely to get fat that way.
I find it quite strange that people think home-cooked meals have to be calorie-dense. It's food. Where you cook it doesn't matter. And if you have to keep your food from being delicious to control your portions... the problem isn't the food.
Guidance for most sedentary American adults (ages 31-50 [1]) is to consume 1800 kcal a day. 100 kcal is 5.5% of your daily caloric budget. You just consumed 5.5% of your daily caloric budget with that one extra tablespoon of butter.
Assuming you have 3 meals a day, and assuming you have 600 kcals per meal, and assuming your nutritionist has prescribed a diet with a 50/20/30 carb/fat/protein ratio, and assuming one of those meals (dinner?) has 100 kcals from fat, that means 16% of the meal was fat. If you eat a lean protein (with a tiny amount of incidental fat) and carbs with that meal, that's actually the perfect amount of fat.
You can also mix up your meals so that, say, breakfast has very little fat, and dinner has more fat, or vice versa. It's all about balance.
>You can melt a tablespoon of butter and toss a bunch of vegetables in it, and it will taste delicious. But it only "cost" 100 extra calories, which is nothing. So go ahead and eat an extra serving of carrots, broccoli, green beans, lettuce, radishes, etc. You are extremely unlikely to get fat that way.
Yeah, but only anorectic are able to keep eating this long term. Until they get to hospital with all kinds of body damage.
British cuisine has some interesting side effects of World War II.
In the UK, today, people specifically desire beans produced by a factory, from a tin, with sugary orange-colored tomato sauce. Even at high end restaurants, people desire and expect tinned beans.
Whereas places outside the UK that share some elements of British culture like Australia, Boston and Ireland expect home made means - crushed tomatoes, borlotti beans, local additions (like feta and mint in Australia).
My best-guess understanding is the British taste for sweet canned beans comes from WW2 rationing.
Hilarious that feta and mint as "Australian" additions. I seem to recall there is or was a sizeable Greek-derived population in some areas of Aussieland - that must be where that comes from.
I don't think I have ever seen home-made beans in Australia, even at fancy cafes. Beans on a breakfast menu means Heinz, or Wattie's if you're in New Zealand.
I do recall my shock at visiting the staff canteen of a large UK corporation and finding out that the most popular menu item by far for lunch was chips (fries) and beans.
> Beans on a breakfast menu means Heinz, or Wattie's if you're in New Zealand.
I don't think you'd ever see beans on a breakfast menu in the US unless it was aimed at working-class Mexican/Central American/Caribbean immigrants. Reminds me of my time in rural Costa Rica and the roadside stands that served a hearty breakfast to the farm workers. And I don't think you'd ever get something to taste that good without cooking it from scratch.
Don't beans make you swollen and fart like a howitzer? Every time I come back to any form of beans because of their price and nutricious values I pay with cannonade of farts.
reply