Quote (inkanddagger @ May 25 2018 01:27pm)

I'm bored and you people are boring.

I'm not a resister by the way. I'm happy Trump was elected over Clinton. It's good for rational, normal people to be able to see how fractured the average conservative brain is occasionally so we can keep shifting society incrementally to the left. And it will be the United States military that you people will have to deal with, not me. I'm a pacifist. But I don't mind entertaining thoughts of right wing fucks being slaughtered by the military they claim to love.

Quote (inkanddagger @ 25 May 2018 17:19)

No, I've pretty much always wanted you people to die. At least since around 1995. From diabetes and heart disease.

Quote (inkanddagger @ 25 May 2018 17:27)

I'm bored and you people are boring.

I'm not a resister by the way. I'm happy Trump was elected over Clinton. It's good for rational, normal people to be able to see how fractured the average conservative brain is occasionally so we can keep shifting society incrementally to the left. And it will be the United States military that you people will have to deal with, not me. I'm a pacifist. But I don't mind entertaining thoughts of right wing fucks being slaughtered by the military they claim to love.

Quote (ThatAlex @ May 25 2018 04:04pm)

Do people seriously think Trump colluded with Russia?

I mean, he almost certainly obstructed justice, likely violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution on multiple counts, conspiracy to defraud the United States is plausible, and he very likely will commit perjury the second he opens his mouth during his interview with the special counsel, but the evidence of campaign collusion is extremely narrow at this point.

Is this the 1950s? Are we really blaming "Russian interference" into our election for Americans believing the stupid shit they saw on Twitter?

Quote (ThatAlex @ May 25 2018 07:04pm)

Do people seriously think Trump colluded with Russia?

I mean, he almost certainly obstructed justice, likely violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution on multiple counts, conspiracy to defraud the United States is plausible, and he very likely will commit perjury the second he opens his mouth during his interview with the special counsel, but the evidence of campaign collusion is extremely narrow at this point.

Is this the 1950s? Are we really blaming "Russian interference" into our election for Americans believing the stupid shit they saw on Twitter?

Quote (IceMage @ May 25 2018 01:05pm)

The goalposts always move in these discussions. First it's Mueller hasn't found anything, then it's Mueller hasn't found any collusion, then it's collusion isn't a crime, etc etc. You can be sure that if real collusion is found(which I would still bet against), self-described "patriots" will be on television talking about how a campaign conspiring with the Russians to win an election isn't a big deal.

Quote (inkanddagger @ May 25 2018 03:44pm)

Yep, it is insanely stupid for Dem-allied media to frame it this way. They should stick to the narrative that the alphabet agencies only embed spies into criminal operations, and the very fact that the federal agencies felt a need to embed a spy is evidence of criminal activity within the criminal Trump enterprise of criminals.

Being a traitor is an executable crime. Trump and his base are traitors. We should be calling for right wing heads to roll, not this weak fucking semantics debate.

Quote (EA7 @ May 25 2018 05:11pm)

Intolerant bigot.

Fortunately, your reprehensible ravings are just fantasies of a sick, weak boy. In reality, if you ever actually tried to put what you were saying in action, the liberals would be crushed within a matter of weeks.

Stronger men, particularly those who take good care of their bodies, are more likely to be conservative. This can easily be explained as achieving a robust and aesthetic physique requires consistent hard work and dedication, something most liberals know nothing about.

Furthermore, conservatives generally support the 2nd amendment and many have personal firearms.

How long do you think a bunch of unarmed sissy boys who are either overweight or famished will last against strong conservative men with guns?

Quote

“I would say that I’m really not a member of that demographic that they’re speaking to,” Rotondo said about millennials. “I’m a very conservative person. The millennials that they’re speaking to are very liberal in their ideology. “

Quote (Horford @ May 26 2018 11:08am)

https://theblemish.com/images/2018/05/Michael-Rotondo.jpg

http://time.com/5289309/michael-rotondo-30-year-old-evicted-parents-millennial/

🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔

Quote

The Confidential Human Source Who Loved Me

President Donald Trump persists in vulgarly describing long-time Cambridge professor Stefan Halper as a “spy.” Not so, insists official Washington—not because the old don wasn’t working to get secret information as part of an FBI counter-intelligence operation, but because spy is the wrong word. The FBI doesn’t use spies, tweets an outraged James Comey, it employs “Confidential Human Sources (the actual term).”

You have to like that parenthetical didacticism, which manages to convey Comey’s contemptuous attitude that the president isn’t just a usurper but an ignorant one at that.

But do we really want our thinking on questions of espionage and other unpleasant necessities circumscribed by language meant to obscure and deflect? Must we speak about spycraft only in the approved terminology of government euphemisms?

The great lexicographer of political life, the late William Safire, once took up the question of “spookspeak,” the language of U.S. intelligence agencies.

He found that the professionals don’t like it when journalists use colorful or vivid language not specified in the rulebook. One such professional chided Safire for having used the term “mole” to describe an intelligence employee “secretly in the pay” of the opposition. Mole isn’t a word that S.I.S. (Senior Intelligence Service) people use, but rather “the best example of jargon created by literary or journalistic use.” So wrote the helpful intelligence professional. Who was this stickler, by the way? No less a mole than Aldrich Ames, who had plenty of time to niggle about language, locked up as he was in Allenwood.

According to official FBI terminology, Safire wrote, there is no such thing as a mole. Instead, there is an “agent in place” or a “recruitment in place.” Such an agent is defined, by official FBI documents Safire had in hand, as “a person who remains in a position while acting under the direction of a hostile intelligence service, so as to obtain current intelligence information.” But please be correct: Don’t call the agent a mole.

The punctilious word-smiths at the FBI did allow “double agent” and specified it as such: someone “engaged in clandestine activity for two or more intelligence services who provides information about one service to another.” Note that the FBI doesn’t say “spying.” It says “clandestine activity.” That’s the sort of subtle linguistic nicety Comey has in mind when he talks about the correct words for secret agentry.

Since when do journalists roll over and accept the bloodless terminology of official euphemisms? Especially when it comes to the obscurantist vocabulary of Washington’s more unpleasant activities.

The sophisticates have long rolled their eyes at such clumsy efforts to elude reality. William Lutz gives an example in his essay on Doublespeak in the book “The State of the Language.” Lutz points to the State Department’s decision in 1983, “that in its annual reports on the status of human rights in countries around the world it would no longer use the word ‘killing.’ Instead, it would use the phrase ‘unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life.’” This change was met with outrage and ridicule, and the chastened State Department revised the phrase to “political killing.”

Where are all the sophisticates when it comes to the laughable insistence that “spy” is not the actual term? I suspect there is no one at Langley whose official job title or description is “spy.” That doesn’t mean there are no spies working for the CIA.

What we need to know more about is what Halper was up to with regard to the Trump campaign. We need to know who sent him, when, whom he approached, how, and what he found out. The facts, not some insistence on euphemism, should determine whether he’s cheered as a “Confidential Human Source” or derided as a “Spy.”