Good piece in the Nation on the current state of Russiagate.

Appetizer:

These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article’s content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language—likely, suspected, apparent—appears next to “Russians” to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

Your video, Woodturning Big Cherry Burl / Epoxy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*lies
What utter tripe. This is below even you, @bobknight33. 1/2 way debunking a few cherry picked theories is no where near proof of anything, especially the impossible.

Um, in case the accent didn't give it away, this news broadcast is from Australia. Stop blaming the "Clinton Obama media" - they have nothing to do with it. This is how the rest of the world views Trump.

Have you ever "listened" to Trump? The amount of bullshit, lies, and self contradictory statements that comes out of his mouth - not just from Twitter - is staggering. You can't just cherry pick the things he said that's "correct", and ignore everything else.

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

Derp.....more cherry picking history to support an agenda.

Probably the same people telling Bob that the Republicans are champions of civil rights and democrats support slavery...as if the 50's and 60's didn't happen.

Did Trump produce this?

Tsarist Russia was a very different place. They have not been our allies for around 70 years now.
Perhaps Russia isn't exactly the USSR any more, but they will be soon if Putin has his way...and Trump seems ok with that. Remember, Putin is a hard core Soviet KGB agent, he wants his satellite countries back.

This is extremely important, and (as far as I know) is extremely prevalent in Judaism, where the notes and interpretations are literally just as important as the scripture itself. These notes have been debated and clarified over the centuries by people who specialise in studying it; beyond that there is still debate, and the notes are still evolving. This means they have something of a self-righting mechanism whereby the mistakes of the past can be corrected.

This is in a way similar to the scientific approach, but using debate instead of empiricism.

The problem is that most christian churches ignore this fact and go by the interpretations of the church leader(s). The most extreme are the bible literalists who can justify pretty much anything by cherry-picking passages. The larger established churches like the catholics have some of this, but are largely missing the key feature of self-correction (except over far longer periods of time, and almost fully at the discretion of the pope).

@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.

EDIT: Based on past experience with his claims, that's not presenting the science, it's completely misrepresenting it. It's what this guy does, he cherry picks someone else's data, totally misrepresents the study and it's conclusions, and makes huge leaps and extrapolations to say things like 'eating meat is now proven to be the same carcinogenic cancer risk as being a chain smoker'....but anyone who can understand the study he cites, limited to highly processed cured meats and mentioning the levels of possible carcinogens was not measured but are likely infinitesimal, can see it said no such thing, and didn't even come close to implying it. That type of misuse of data gets my goat....I think lying about science and data are crimes against humanity, and I wish they were actionable.

Bullshit, that's not true at all. My wife eats cheese about 3-4 times a year, and enjoys it those times. Same with beef. No addiction cycle exists with that long of a period that I'm aware of.
Food preference/taste is in no way the same as addiction, and any "doctor" telling you differently is a liar.
Habits and addictions are different concepts, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently.

I feel shame, just not for what I eat.
You can try to shame me, you'll just fail. You can annoy, however, with the constant vegan proselytizing, in the same way some religious zealots annoy but don't make atheists fear hell.
You succeeded with the insult, though, intentionally or not. I don't like the implication that we are all junkies, even cheese junkies.

You know full well I never said any such thing, and adding quotes as if you cut and pasted it is not honest. What I have said is your guru, an often discredited, exaggerating, data misrepresenting, cherry picking, hyper biased, internet "Dr" that makes his living selling pro-vegan lectures, books, and videos was not a good source for reliable science....you made up the rest. The internet was invented for science.

Think you sorta cherry picked that paragraph. I agree with pool that atheists are completely shit at treating any theist's beliefs with respect.

"My my... hit a nerve did she."

Are you attempting to ask a question?

But really, on this super left wing dominated site it isn't a surprising "question".

Samantha Bee is sometimes funny but usually not.

This segment was moderately humorous. Of course pick any major development in the world and there will almost definitely be multiple people unhappy with it. This isn't something that is unique to Trump developments. Furthermore finding (and cherry picking for your segment) people that hate Trump - or any other politician - isn't hard either.

No. Compromise implies give and take, not a one sided one way capitulation. I think 'both side's (as if there are only two factions) need to work together for common goals, not try to force their agenda down the other's throat. Trump voters need to change, especially the far right ones, same for Clinton voters on the far left. Neither extreme is good for the nation, but centrists are a dying breed. Sanders did reach out and had Republican support.....the DNC fucked us all by fucking him.
I understand the idea that Trump is the lesser evil, if you don't believe anything bad about him and believe he's successful, like most of his supporters. I contend the only evidence they have for that is his worthless word, because he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying and screwing people over....but they didn't read it.

The pc crowd has damaged the left as much as the Nazis have the right. They both suck, but moderate dems at least fight the pc thugs, not so much on the right.

They aren't islamaphobes for discussing that question, they are islamaphobes for saying only Islam makes violent extremists.
Transphobes for pronoun use...just dumb to me.
Homophobes for obeying a priest that said to hate them, or attack them, or deny their humanity....absolutely....especially since they must cherry pick what's ok and what's not to justify their hatred but excuse similar sins they commit (shellfish, blended fabrics, both just like homosexuality, all three from the old testament, so not for Christians anyway).

The war on Xmas is bullshit. I've never once seen a real person upset in the least over merry Xmas....unless it's displayed on public property, that's unacceptable for any religion.

I really think the outrage over pc thugs is a red herring. If you don't live on a liberal campus, you'll probably never meet one. I live in liberal hippy paradise and I haven't. What they want is nuts, but who cares, Nazis want a Nazi state, which is nuts and anti American, who cares, it won't happen.
Maybe I'm wrong and pc has taken over, but I don't see it outside of South Park.

this guy is a piece of garbage, he cherry picks stats to try to make a point and lies at will; how about the Mosque burned down in Texas; how about the shooting in the Mosque in Quebec? he's the type of awful person that gets us to this point along with the molestor in chief, bannon, and the rest of these sickos

Downvote on point one, that feeling victimised is worse than being victimized. Just duh.
Acting the victim when you are not one, like Republicans and Christians do, is detrimental, acting the victim when you've been victimized is being rational. It's hilariously hypocritical to hear a conservative complain about victim mentality after the last 8 years of their whining and moaning about Obama victimizing them.

Out of wedlock birth doesn't mean dad's out of the picture, only that parents aren't married.

As stated above, cherry picked facts and ignoring history makes this ridiculous victim blaming. For instance, blaming Detroit's condition on liberal governance and ignoring the loss of the auto industry and other factors in it's decline is totally dishonest or just ignorant in the extreme, your choice.