I'm thinking he got he got himself some, if ya know what I mean. *nudge nudge wink wink*

I think it's on point.
Doctors rarely tell people forcefully enough that being obese will kill them and make their lives miserable and prone to disease. Not being obese helps your health in every way.

No, it's not a guarantee you won't get sick, a seatbelt isn't a guarantee you won't get hurt in a crash, but it absolutely helps your odds of not being hurt and minimizes injuries when you are.

No, being healthy doesn't mean you can't spread disease, but being health conscious means you would know better, and know how to be safer. If you weigh 500 lbs it's clear health isn't your priority with very few exceptions.

Bill has been saying this for decades....it's like he's suggesting fireproof surrounds for wood stoves. Just because people are burning their houses down in huge numbers now is not a reason to stop advocating for safety, it's more reason to be louder.

Most doctors don't. They nudge, hint, maybe say "if you eat more baby, we're going to have to take your foot" (Simpson's), they don't tell 65 year old women "you weigh 350 lbs, you need to drop 200 lbs now or you're going to die and we aren't going to waste money and effort treating you if you won't lose weight". They should, imo.

Being overweight should be treated like smoking, it's a choice for 99%+, and that choice effects others. Covid proves it, many can't be treated at all because so many have horrible illness, far worse than most other thinner and healthier countries.

Fat acceptance, even fat pride is a thing, there are millions who claim they're obese and healthy, and it's fine to be obese. Take Lizzo as an example.

Full disclosure, I'm not obese, but I am overweight at 5'9" 170lbs.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

@bareboards2, I get where you're coming from.

I think one would have to be naive in the extreme not to admit that women especially are discriminated on based on their looks (both positively and negatively).

That said, I do find it uncomfortable judging people on their looks. Neither you nor I know these women; some of them might be there purely as eye candy, but they could equally just be really good at what they do.

As a straight white male, this is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Comment on their looks, and I'm either objectifying them or assuming competency based on their looks. Don't say anything and I'm giving tacit approval to employers deliberately choosing women based on their looks ("hey man, you hire *whoever* you want.... nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

note: this is not a complaint... straight males are in this situation because we put ourselves here.

Now... all that said: I think you're almost certainly right about THIS company. Their instagram is pretty damning in that respect.

He's only telling half the story.

Yes, American agencies won't spy on Americans without a warrant, BUT, all Western intelligence agencies have a nudge-nudge wink-wink relationship. "We won't spy on OUR citizens, so we'll just spy on yours, you spy on ours and we'll share intel at the end of the day."

It amounts to the same thing, just with a clever workaround to pretend to the public like you're not actually spying on them.

@robdot
trying to unpack your comment.

"spent the entire election cycle ranting about hillary"

what the holy fuck are you blathering about?

the entire election cycle liberals fell asleep at the wheel,and tacitly bought the bullshit pie that:paid political pundits,pollsters and supposed "informed political journalists" were selling.

hillary is going to win,the polls reveal that hillary will beat trump handily.don't worry liberal democrats,hillary is going to win.do not pay attention to hillary's abysmal numbers,because trumps are just as horrid.

and just WHAT was hillary's platform?
what was her political messaging and vision for america's future?

"well,my fellow americans,at least i am not THAT guy".
that was it,that pathetic,weak and facile position,WAS her campaign!

if this is what you are referencing,then yes..i agree..the democrats fucking dropped the ball.they had no message,no platform,no vision.

the democrats lost a massively energized younger population when they openly,and brazenly,fucked over sanders,because sanders threatened the DNC and the democrats corporate money train,and we can't have a politician who has shown integrity,morals and vision now can we?

hillary on the other hand,had already proven to be a willing participant in the corporate train.you know..speak one way to the people,but another way behind closed doors..wink-wink-nudge nudge-know-what-i-mean.

if this is what you are talking about,then yes,i agree,liberal democrats need to take a big,giant bite out of that shit sandwich and stop behaving like they are fucking victims.

Can these people stop kicking these robots when they want to test stability? I mean how archival abuse footage do you want to give the propaganda machines when they start the uprising for robot kind?

Just like nudge them with a soft pillow with a smiley face on it or something.

If refugees begin to act in a hostile manner because their plight is minimized and ignored while they are demonized and dehumanized but others that actually did the terroristic and anti American things they are suspected of are not given that treatment, that's human nature. Racist/xenophobic actions often cause anger.
Edit: keep in mind, most that are radicalized are teenagers and early 20's, so aren't the most rational or non violent by nature of their age, regardless of their culture.

It's not like that at all, imo. It's like a political/war refugee saying 'keep your international legal obligations or we'll dislike you more'. How much more do you think some need to dislike us before they act on that hatred? I would say we've created plenty of victims that are on that razors edge and only need a nudge to make their reasonable hatred become action....and giving them nothing to lose by acting, not a good idea.

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

@Stormsinger

i can agree with the intent of your comment but i think it ignores a far greater,and possibly more dangerous facet of this current election cycle.

look,
when the DNC began it's political play to nudge sanders out,and was changing the rules of application to keep laurence lessig off the ballot.it became obvious (to me anyways) that clinton was tagged for the run,and the DNC was attempting to steal sanders thunder,which was shockingly impressive,and redirect it to boost clinton.

but the DNC had failed to successfully execute this plan because they didn't understand the true nature of those sanders supporters.so their plan backfired.

the RNC did almost the EXACT same thing with trump.they hated the man,wanted nothing to do with him,but they saw how powerful his campaign was picking up steam and they attempted to play the long con.for a year they allowed trump to do and say whatever he wanted,with little rebuttal or regard.they watched as trump got bigger,and bolder,and more brash.they watched his numbers climb consistently..and they waited.and after a year,they attempted to step in and steal trumps thunder by offering a more "reasonable" candidate.

ok ok...enough with the trump.
you want cruz?...nope.
how about ben carson? he is a sweet guy and BLACK....nope.
marco rubio?he is spanish with immigrant parents...nope
john kasich?...nope

because the RNC didn't get it either.they too,attempted to steal trumps thunder and their plan backfired.

liberals didnt get it.
conservatives didnt get it.
corporate media didnt get it.
political pundits,who get PAID to get it,didnt get it.
pollsters didnt get it.
suzy mcprettyface who reads the teleprompter didnt get it.

but the americans who lived in those dead midwestern towns got it.they may not understand neoliberalism,but they could see the effects by the boarded up stores,closed banks and the only jobs to have were the night shift at the one fast food joint left in the entire town.

these are the very same people who may not fully comprehend what the bank bailouts meant,or how austerity affected them,but they understood that the biggest industry in their town was no longer coal,or steel,or fishing but production of meth.they saw small shops close and crumble under the weight of a walmart superstore,and chains of pill mills.

they watched as construction jobs dried up,and private prisons expanded.there are some towns in texas and florida that literally survive on the incarceration of other americans.so they may not have fully understood that the "war on drugs" is actually a war on people,but they certainly could see the after-effects.

and these people were being told..everyday..that the economy was doing great.
that unemployment was at an all time low.
that the american dream was still attainable.
and at the very same time they were also being told that if you were on food stamps you were a loser,and a leech.
that if you lost your home it was YOUR fault.
that if you couldnt find a job you were lazy.
and if you DID happen to find a job,but it paid minimum,well then you should have gone to college or made better choices.

and since when did it become a virtue to exploit the hopeless and the desperate? to take advantage of someones misfortune and pay them pennies to do a job,but god forbid someone actually demands what they feel they are worth,because then you are accused of being a rip off artist!

when did THIS tactic become and american ideology?

and that really is the core nugget of this tale.
the ideology of america.
the amercian dream.
it was dead,and those people finally got it.
and there is NOTHING more fanatical or zealous than a defeated idealist.

so you can judge them for voting trump,but i think we should also understand WHY they voted for trump.

chris hedges wrote a truthdig piece that is far more eloquent and illuminating than anything i could ever put to paper.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_are_all_deplorables_20161120

Nothing is going to get done in Congress because the animosity between the two parties at this point in Congress is at Defcon 1. Bipartisanship is completely DOA. Both sides are just looking to criticize the other while crafting the narrative that their side is the one that knows what's best for the American people.

I think what you're going to see more of are things like what's happening in Hawaii. State representatives are going to realize the untapped voter potential that's out there by crafting gun laws before Congress does. In fact, probably the best solution to this problem right now is for States to work with each other and standardize all disparate gun laws across the U.S.

The real question here is how the Supreme Court is going to view these state laws when they (inevitably) get challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Scalia is gone now, so I honestly don't know how the Court will decide. But if you look at how gay marriage was essentially legalized in the U.S. state-by-state, I think you can see a road-map to how gun control laws could follow a similar path.

What's missing right now is an advocacy group that cares as much about this issue as the NRA does about "gun rights." It's easier to get people behind the legalization of gay marriage because it's a human rights issue and at the end of the day most people have a relative or friend (or several of each) who is affected. Sadly, it may take a day to come when everyone has a relative or friend who has suffered from gun violence to get the same kind of groundswell necessary to nudge things meaningfully forward.

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

Hey, we’ve found something more annoying than vertical video, not bothering to straighten your dashcam after nudging it.

I think she considers Tyler Johnston the most impressive "thing" she's ever "done".

If you catch my drift, >nudge< >nudge< >wink< >wink< know what I mean? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, I always say.