Russiagate has been a fraud created by Hillary Campaign, Barack Obama, the DNC, their political appointments in the "Deep State", and perpetuated by their allies in the media. Every time one aspect is debunked, they just invent a different revelation to chase down, until that one is debunked as well. This gish gallop of dinsinformation flim-flams the FakeNews watchers because the revelations (really unsourced allegations) are front page, and the corrections/retractions come days, weeks or months later and are back page: so many low-informed people think there's cumulative circumstantial evidence. But the deeper you look, the more it's prestidigitation (smoke and mirrors), and the only hard evidence is of Democrats and the media behaving badly. If you can read the following FAQ, and discover facts not-in-evidence in the media (and mentioned often), then it proves that there's either incompetence or collusion to rig an election (the last or next one).
Californians (who supported this), lost their right to ever complain about state overreach again. California arrogantly tried to proclaim that federal immigration law, doesn't apply to them -- and anyone in the state that complies with the federal law, will be victimized by the government of the state.
Sarah Jeong is a racist man-hating anti-cop troll with an advanced degree in Grievance Studies, so naturally she was hired as an technology editor at NYT. Not that she has a clue about technology (her pedigree is in Social Media). When people figured out that she's done hundreds of sexist and racist tweets, and complained, the NYT says, "it's OK because she was counter-trolling". (a) They're lying, you can walk her tweets and find plenty that she started (b) they miss the point that almost everyone accused of racism was responding to someone else who attacked them first. This is all fancy wording for saying, "But they did it first", and being wrong about it.
The question is whether racist tweets are right, or wrong, or contextual? The left says that it's always wrong (when the other side does it) because there's no excuse for it, and context doesn't matter.... but it's OK when their side does it, because context forgives their behavior. Like their defense of Antifa and it's OK to punch a Nazi in the mouth, because they're Nazi's. Missing the point that the Nazi's were the ones that made excuses for why it was OK to punch people in the mouth.
So a troll named "Q Clearance Patriot" (Q Clearance implies they have Top Secret clearance on nuclear weapons and materials), got on 4chan (2018.10.28), and later 8chan,and trolled about all sorts of silly stuff about worldwide conspiracy theories such as, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired MS-13 to murder DNC staffer Seth Rich, or Robert Mueller isn't actually investigating Trump, he was appointed by Trump to investigate Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other top Democrats for their involvement in planting evidence, or a global pedophile ring. After getting thrown off Reddit, they created an App called QDrops to spread their more and more absurd theories, and a few right wing celebrities tweeted stuff.
This blew up when among the 8,000 filled seats in Trump's Tampa rally, were maybe a dozen people wearing T-Shits with QAnon, or holding up "We are Q signs"... and a few of them seemed to be involved in chanting "CNN Sucks" over the appropriately named CNN FakeNews mouthpiece and polemic hack Jim Acosta. Disagreeing with CNN just for being rude, incompetent and being wrong so often, was the last straw. Many unbiased media snowflakes tweeted how bad it was to claim "CNN sucks" and overdramatic, so they compared that to an "Erdogan-style crackdown on his media critics", and calling Trump supporters White Trash, Nazi's, the KKK, and calling for them to be euthanized.... all in the name of benevolent moderation, of course. And to those media outlets, it is the Trump supporters that are scary and using overblown hate/rhetoric? Seriously!
The problem to me seems to be that the media is not in on the joke that many of these folks are just punking the media. The alt-right is filled with trolls that dick with the media for attention, and a lot of their followers do too -- they get geek credit for getting the media to repeat false memes that were created to outrage the media and the far-left. There's little evidence they actually believe the shit they spout, there's a ton of evidence that they enjoy pretending they do, because it outrages the left, and the media creates clickbait headlines and sensationalizes the conspiracy (which proves to them how bad/gullible the media is). Of the dozen that showed up to a Trump rally, I expect that 8 are enjoying punking the media, and 4 are true believers of any batshit theory that makes the media or left look bad. Meanwhile, 60% of ALL Democrats in polls think Socialism had positive impacts on society (if you ignore the 180M murdered last century by them). Which is more scary to you? If you think the former, you probably watch CNN without laughing.
Who has more psychotics, Democrats or Republicans?
Q: Who has more Psychotics (Democrats or Republicans)? A: It doesn't matter.
The Democrat controlled media loves to run stories showing how the conservatives and right are all nutjobs and ad-hominem the other side as a form of virtue signaling. ("We're better than they are"). And it's stupid. Even when it backlashes.
One of their most famous papers from 2012 The American Journal of Political Science had to be corrected: ooops, they misattributed sides. It turned out that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. And do you know what? It didn't make the story any less stupid (just slightly more believable). Here's why:
(1) I’m not sure these are helpful in any way. It’s not like either side will believe it, even if it was conclusive.
(2) Right now, progressives are more likely to have young, fringe, and radical members. (With the exception of the troll fringe / alt-right on the right). But change who is in power, and that can shift. So when you measure changes the result, and most of these aren't timely (they're lagged by many years).
(3) Europe and America don’t have similar maps or motivations on who is left or right. Pretending they do, makes us all dumber. And often the U.S. is citing European studies and vise-versa, so even if it was true for that demographic/time, it's only likely valid for that local political environment -- so stupid to cross compare.
(4) Most of all, the point is that the diversity in these sets far exceeds the similarities. So who cares?
Look, do I think that extreme vegans, environmentalist, or SJW activists are more likely to skim more psychotics out of society to their causes? Or that immigrants driven out of their countries are more likely to have a few extremists (but more than the general population) and are attracted to the left? Sure. Maybe enough to bend the trends a little. But then there’s sub-movements on the right that might do the same. But think it through.
(5) The individuals don't represent the sub-group
One sub-group (political faction) in that party, doesn't represent the other sub-groups in the party
The party isn't constant, and sub-groups jump parties. (Like Blue-Collar working class shifted from Obama to Trump in the 2016 election).
So even if it mattered for one small faction, for a picosecond, it certainly isn't good for generalizing (broad brushing) all conservatives or all progressives.
(6) Understand scale - we’re talking small differences when weighed against the whole.
Does it really matter if 0.5% of the right are asshat psychotics and sociopaths, and 1% of the left is? “Oh that’s twice as much!”... but it’s still statistically irrelevant — and just a lot of noise/churn that does not matter.
So this broad-brush is bullshit when the left and media do it to the right... but that doesn’t make it any better when the right does it back. (Even if a cup of comeuppance can be a delicious just deserts).
The progressive left has fostered disinformation and sensationalized problems with evil freedom/capitalism for so long, and regurgitated it through the media/educational institutions, so much, that their kids are buying the bullshit. Thus, they keep moving further and further into loonie left land. And none exemplify that better than Alaxandria Ocasio-Cortez, a limousine socialist that won the NY Primary against Joseph Crowley: a 10 term establishment guy. While Crowley was far left Representative, he wasn't far left enough for the DNC's new generation, and so Cortez beat him out, a goes to the general, where she's a likely shoe-in, with her party platform being no less than abolishing profits, "abolishment of capitalism", abolishing prisons, and abolishing borders.
The left has a rich history of politicizing and undermining the autonomy of the Supreme Court, even going to far as to the try to stack it, and still does. They put litmus tests on their side, and scream that the other side does (when they don't). They also invented the concept of Borking (after the atrocities they did to Judge Bork and later Clearance Thomas). The lates in this string is the hypocritical histrionics they're having over Brett Kavanaugh.
Whether you call it an Emergency Kit, Zombie or Bugout Bag, Prepper Pack, or SHTF (Shit Hits the Fan), it is all the same. Everyone should plan for contingencies, and the likelihood you'll need one is far more likely that you might think. So the question isn't whether you should have one (you're being sort of irresponsible if you don't), the question is more what fits your needs or expectations, and what is best to put in it.
Does America break up families, keep kids in cages, and abuse illegal immigrants? Obviously, not enough or there would be far fewer illegal immigrants. (They're far more looped into the risks than the average Joe). The facts are this is rare, temporary, this has been done forever (and under the Obama and Clinton administrations), and the idea that criminals shouldn't be separated from their kids is absurd. Under the Democrats reasoning, for domestic crime, it is fine to separate families. But for foreign invaders and perpetrators should get special exceptions. But a nation without laws is no longer a nation.
BuzzFeed and other far-left SJW organizations keep looking for new excuses to prove that you need them to turn the world something that it isn't: fair. So they see injustice everywhere and whine about it, polarizing everyone against everyone else, with silliness like this video which has a few trans-actors whining about how they don't get pay equity (or jobs). Of course the reason they don't get jobs, is because they're waiting for people to hand them to them, instead of working for them.
I'm not insensitive to trans issues (many are good people having a tougher life), but if you're like 0.3% of the general population - and probably 3-10 times that of the entertainment industry, then it's naturally going to put downward pressure on salaries. (Too much supply for the demand).
More than that, when Hollywood pushes the outliers as common... in every, f'in film/show, it causes backlash against Hollywood. People go for entertainment, not SJW inclusiveness lectures. So they have to be subtle about it, and it has to add benefit to the story line -- not be another token minority to make the woke feel good, or else nobody on the show makes money, and then there will be no more shows like it. Shows produced for politics might benefit politicians, but not the investors or actors.
Probably 75%+ of the films have no place for a trans person in them, because it's not part of the story, and would just be a distraction to it. Why does Mary Poppins need one of the kids to be transexual? Why does the Terminator need a gender-fluid sidekick robot? And so on. It's stupid. Even Star Wars adding a gender bending Lando Calrissian did little for the plot (though it didn't really bother me either).
Then on top of that, remember that oddity demands more explanation than the cliché: you have to inject backstory and explanation -- all of which distracts from the bigger story arcs, not adds to them. Meaning if you're being true to the book, story or life, you don't need or want to inject Trans or LGBTQ, just to appeal to 0.3% (or 3%) of the audience, and irritate more like 50% that think, "WTF was that about?"
What they seem to want is to be trans, and only playing trans roles. And because those are so scarce, they have no name recognition or career chops — AND they have expectations of equal salaries with those with much more experience? Seems absurd.
Look, good straight actors should be able to convince you that they're trans. And Gay/Trans actors should be able to play straights. It comes with the job. If Hollywood has a starring role, and Hollywood is going to go for the biggest names, then trans folks are screwed again: the bigger name will and should win. (It's better for the film). For Trans to be desirable in a trans-role, they first need to be a successful actor. Which means if they're not doing straight jobs, then they're less likely to get a trans-job, because their Résumé isn't up for the role.
Play straight folks, there are plenty out there. If you can’t do that, then you’re not much of an actor, or you’ve made body modification decisions that limited your career. (Like Tyson getting his face tattooed took him out of the running for roles like, “clean cut businessman). Rock Hudson and many other famous actors were closeted first -- and made their chops being good actors. Some came out later, some didn't. But the point is if you can't make it as a straight actor, then you don't deserve some special privilege (handicapping the casting) just because you're trans: so grow up and get over yourselves. You picked a shitty career to be an oddity. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, could only play a basketball player or a few other roles, because of his looks/physique -- it's unfair, and it sucks. Welcome to life in the big city.
So you have a demand ceiling, a supply glut, on an industry that already undervalues character actors (and overvalues "stars"), and a market that wants characters that they can associate to. So Trans actors should be more concerned with learning to do the roles that are in demand, than demanding they be in one fo the few roles that fit them (while lacking the experience to carry the role). And demanding equal pay for unequal experience, is just stupid.
This is nothing personal. My wife and I were talking about the same stuff over lunch and her new Union contract (how much better a deal the pilots and maintenance guys got). But while a flight attendant works harder than the Pilots -- there's a much much larger supply of young girls that want the romance of being a flight attendant (and will go through 5 weeks of training), than there are people that will go through a few years of flight training to be stuck in a small cabin being a sky-bus driver with an asocial gaseous windbag next to you. If you don't like it, pick another path in life.
I'm sorry it sucks and is unfair, but the same thing happens for handicapped actors. Or folks like me that might not be one of the "pretty people". It doesn't make them bad people -- but economics aren't going to play well for them in that career path. So follow your bliss, or follow the money... just don’t do the former and bitch that you’re paying the consequences for your own life choices.
Dinesh D'Souza's latest movie is "Death of a Nation". And it perfectly exemplifies the bias in movie reviewers. Rotten Tomatoes Score: 0/90. Not a single reviewer liked it, 90% of the audience does - and that shows how of our touch or biased the reviewers are. Remember, this is the first of his movies to open in over 1,000 theaters, and his documentaries easily out-earn most (usually putting him in the top handful of documentaries of all time).
Ant-Man and the Wasp, is the long anticipated sequel to Ant-Man (2015). I'm not sure who was really waiting with baited breath, but I'm sure some fan was. These are silly, zany super-heroes with an absurd abilities: to shrink and grow and most fights involve a lot of both in something that makes other super-hero movies sedate and followable in contrast. They aren't bad, and you know you're getting a lot of slapstick type super-hero stuff, with a screw-up super-hero and his sides cracking one-liners: but sometimes movies are just an excuse to get out of the house.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a classic movie done in 1971, with Gene Wilder. (Technically, it was Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory -- but the book was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, so that's what most people know it as, even if wrong). Just to cut to the chase, this is a classic, and while a bit creepy and weird, it is seared in my memories from youth, and so it's cemented in nostalgic feelings of love for my childhood.
I was never a fan of the Ocean's series, partly because I'm not a caper-heist movie fan (too much artificial complexity), and most ensemble films substitute star power for good writing, acting and plot. Plus, it had George Clooney, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, the trifecta of clueless-but-sanctimonious douchebaggery. So the Ghostbuster's Girl-Power remake of THAT wasn't high on my priority list for films I gotta see. But my wife wanted to see it, and she sees enough of my stupid movies that a little quid pro quo was in order.
Maybe it was my lowered expectations, but I really liked it. It was far better than the others, though that's a low bar. It was one of the better heist movies I've seen, probably because it didn't go over the top with an elaborate 400-stage, everything has to go perfect, sorta bullshit complexity that is crammed into most. There were whiffs of that, to keep the heist-plot pages filled and continue the genre... but a lot was leading up to the theft, or afterwards, and that played better for me. And while it had some plot holes with over-complexifying a snatch a grab, the holes weren't as in-your-face as in the average episode of The Walking Dead. So I liked it better than some other recent films I'd seen, such as Avengers: Infinity War. It was mostly just a heist film, with a few twists -- where criminals are the heroes, and James Corden plays himself as carpool insurance investigator. There were a few subtle undertones of Girl Power, without beating you over the head with it. While it's not deep, it was an afternoon of escapism.
I did a training at Google, and they had the fancy Japanese style bidet toilets in their visitors center. Since i was using the facilities, I tried it out. Not bad. I decided to get one for the home -- hey, a few hundred bucks to a squeaky clean pooper sounded like a fair trade to me. Something to do with removing my gallbladder and my intestinal issues, often gives me sticky poops that require a lot of wiping. I had a work-friend that thought these were life changing... while I find it nice, I don't quite go to that extreme. But I do think it's worth the money and a better experience.... especially when you're sick and sore from wiping.
Look, I watch HBO for Game of thrones, and that's it. I only turn it on for that 6-8 weeks, then it's gone. The reason is while they do a few shows that I liked (Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Silicon Valley), I've always felt it's a bit overpriced for the usage.... but more than that, their obnoxious politicization of TV isn't worth my time. I watch TV for either entertainment or education (information) -- HBO spends way too much time funding liberal disinformation or advocacy shows. So even when they run a good one, I'm reluctant to subsidize all the shit they produce: they've destroyed their brand with many libertarians, moderates or conservatives by being so blatantly one-sided.
Some names include: Sex and the City (feminists behaving badly), Girls (basically, a ruder version of Sex and the City), Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (liberal propaganda), Looking (pro-gay propaganda), The Newsroom (anti-conservative propaganda), Real Time with Bill Maher (anti-conservative propaganda), Big Love (anti-Mormon/Polygamy propaganda), Game Change (anti-conservative and anti-Sarah Palin hit piece), Recount (propaganda about the Bush election recount), Entourage (celebrating hip-hop culture), K Street, The Fence, Spike Lee's - When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, By the People: The Election of Barack Obama, every obnoxious far-left Comedian gets an HBO special (few of the conservative ones). Then there's the fact that HBO started Comedy Central and the Comedy Channel, which turned out to be far left propaganda mills.
Solo: A Star Wars Story is a prequel about the Star Wars character Han Solo (in case you've been hiding under a rock or something). Like Rogue One, this is a stand alone story about events prior to "A New Hope" (the original) -- and this tells about the early adventures of Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Lando Calrissian, and their caper heists within the criminal underworld of the Empire. On it's own, it's thoroughly predictable but done well enough to not be a rip-off. But for Star Wars lore, or to get the full canon, it's probably a bit better than that. And if you're a Star Wars fan, it's probably better still.