Reuters headline: Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources

... and then the content:
"The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far."

"Those discussions focused on mending U.S.-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said."

Then there's the cover of Time.

I have no idea if the media's quest to defenestrate Trump will be successful, putting avowed theocrat Mike Pence on the throne, but this I believe: it will destroy the last bit of credibility the media had left. All the hyperventilation without ever putting up anything conclusive is suicide in slow-motion.

For eight months now, they've been running the hacking story, which went from hacking to influencing to meddling. Not once have they produced evidence, neither the media nor the intelligence agencies, yet they keep on insisting it's the real deal.

If you can find it check out the book about an Alice Cooper 1973 tour called "Billion Dollar Baby". James Randi was part of the tour as he designed the guillotine and gallows the band used. He's quite the character in the book.

That book is also interesting because it was written by Bob Greene, who became infamous for his own reasons. And the Cooper band members resented him for writing what they felt was a trashy skewed version of his time with them on that tour.

Your video, Elephants Show Cooperation on Test, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Its basically all in the video, there are physical barriers already out there, it is a long term problem that has been improving lately, there is probably not much more protection a big wall would provide over a symbolic fence (only effect is length of tunnel/ladder required). Everyone agrees on illegal vs. legal, prostitution and drugs can not be eradicated, only limited, by making the little girls illegal you push them in peril. One could improve the situation by cooperating with the government of Mexico and border states, border towns, by making the legal waiting line clear and bearable, Trump is the elephant in the porcelain shop on all of this, making things worse.

Simple solutions to complicated problems... never mind.

Are americans really competing with illegal immigrants for jobs?
Is it that hard to get an education in the US that would get you past the dish-washing stage? IDK.

Why are the rules for employing illegal imigrants so hard to uphold? Could it be because it is impossible? Because no-one else would be willing to do the work for the money available in the local economy? How would the overall situation change if rules on "legalising" some of these people were relaxed instead of tightened? If they can hold a job for months or years without commiting any law violations besides going past the validity of their work permit they deserve at the very least permanent residence over all the trash living on social security just because they were born a few miles north.

If they are living and working and not doing any wrong, you should keep them regardless of... whatever.

BTW I happen to agree with what you wrote about that commercial 100%, Bob. Just probably from a different point of view. Its propaganda fairy-telling without a good point.

If I really wanted to move to the US I would make absolutely sure I had a plan on what to do there. Not just get in at all costs. Like the Budweiser guy (but better beer).

@newtboy,

You said:Stop.

Glad we might be getting somewhere .

I agree on not forgiving the blatantly racist factions. I've said the same thing of ISIS, jihadists and their ilk. They and guys like Richard Spencer remain the mortal enemies of civilization. We never accept them or their ideas, if they want peace or cooperation, they are the ones that need to change.

I do still fear that for all practical purposes your position, and seemingly that of the democrats and protesters out in force, is little different from writing off everyone that voted Trump. If the expectation is that Trump voters need to be the ones that swallow all the change or make all the compromises then the difference doesn't matter. If you want to get people to vote your ticket or candidate, you've got to be the ones reaching out. Demanding the prospective voters come apologetically to your party isn't drawing them in, it's driving them away.

Neil Mcdonald from CBC I think summed up where a lot of Trump voters came to the conclusion that Hillary was no lesser evil:
You can bet they're listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they're denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns "he" or "she" without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase "Merry Christmas."

There are millions of people out there who aren't terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between "cisnormative" and "heteronormative," and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

Sorry to over stimulate you small leftest brain with truth and morality.

I'll keep it simple.

Roy Cooper-- BAD
Pat McCrory- GOOD

What a dumb bitch sore loser.

Roy Cooper, who won the NC race, wants woman to be able to use the men room and men to use the woman's rest rooms. This alow applies to locker rooms. This was the main fight for the governorship of NC this year.

Pat McCrory was correct in fighting against this.

http://videosift.com/video/Attorney-General-Roy-Coopers-Bathroom-Plan

And a pro Roy Copper ad



NBA, NCAA and ACC and others pulled out of Carolina because of them being for the below.

They and Roy Cooper are against the HB2 bill that will keep men out of woman's bathrooms and women out of men bathrooms.

I like the movie version more. While the album one is sung by the better singer with better technique, the movie version performs the emotion better. This Herod is a worse singer but he worries less about the actual singing and more about performing the emotional state of the character. It's more an acting performance which, given the text and intention of the song, makes it IMO better. Alice Cooper's version isn't bad (better than the Album version) but I prefer this one more. Herod comes across as more condescending, arrogant and sarcastic in the movie. The singing is not that good (still better than the mixing of the song) but it has emotional truth that the album version is lacking.

If only it were actual ACTION.
What they did was force inaction for about 25 hours, and now until July because they just recessed.
Sadly, inactive government is a gift to the Republicans, not some kind of hindrance.
No vote was taken (not that a vote would help, it's clear they can't pass any gun bill in either house). At least they showed they're trying....kind of.
I partially agree with Paul that this was simply a play for attention....but I also see that that's the most Democrats can do at this point, because they get zero cooperation from Republicans on anything. (I would also point out that every 'repeal Obamacare' vote was nothing more than a play for attention, so Ryan's comment is really the pot calling the kettle black.)

I can only hope that the unwillingness and inability of Republicans to legislate at all will lose them congress and the presidency....which will also lose them the Judicial. Perhaps if that all comes to pass, SOME progress can be made....certainly it won't be made until then.

Listening to Trump is like listening to a kid give a pretend speech.

"We need to get the bad people what did this and all the muslims must cooperate with the police to get the bad men because they know, they know who the bad people are and they have to tell us."

It's like watching a confidence trickster sell snake oil - "It works, I know.. I know, trust me." - and I'm one of the only people that can see through it. Inside there's a desperate man with a hunted look on his face going "Please tell me they bought what I just said and they're not going to pour all my oil down the drain and make me walk out of town with my pants around my ankles again."

He's like a white, old Kanye West - he's all talk and no substance, his best stuff happened so long ago no one can remember whether it was really any good in the first place or just good fortune and all his co-workers think he's a joke and can't believe how he ever got to where he's gotten. Whilst Kanye married into an association with a big arse, Trump achieved that all by himself though he did have a head start with that name.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Wait...you don't vote for corruption, but you'll vote for Trump? That does not compute. Trump has been involved in 3500 lawsuits over the last decades and often doesn't pay his bills, so often he had to address it and actually said 'if I don't think you did a good job, I don't pay'...that's theft of services, a crime of moral turpitude. You think he doesn't have experience placing obstacles to his adversaries? That's an insane hypothesis, he's shown thousands of times that he does know, and he wrote a book about it. EDIT: In fact, it seems that, in large part, he's made his money by extortion, making it far more difficult and expensive to fight him than it is to just let him rip you off and walk away.
He has clearly and repeatedly said HE is one of the people that paid off politicians to make laws that favor him (he said this in an effort to paint Clinton as corrupt for taking his money). HE is the ROOT of corruption in Washington....how on earth can you convince yourself he's not corrupt.

Trump will absolutely make an unfair system worse. He's a megalomaniac, and will do everything in his power, legal or not, to grab as much power as possible and put it into the hands of the president with no thought to what that does after he's out of office, and no one will stand up to him in any meaningful way out of fear of certain disproportionate reprisal.

Yes, maybe eventually the damage he does could be fixed, but that damage is FAR worse than you seem to imagine. The rest of the world sees him as a completely unstable, unpredictable person, and if he's the president, there's absolutely no question that world markets would fail due to that uncertainty, causing another world recession at best just from his election without a single act. As was mentioned, our standing on the world stage will also be destroyed, as it would be a clear signal to the world that America is not a partner, but an adversary to cooperation and reason.

Most non republicans would certainly disagree with your description of Scalia's record, as would many republicans. Some progressive laws got past him, yes, but the more progressive ones were usually stymied by him for completely insane reasons.

True, a smart corrupt person could do more damage than an upstanding idiot, but a bullying corrupt idiot with power can do the most damage of all without even trying...and holy shit are we all doomed if he gets upset and tries to do damage.

When right brain picks up a Rubik's cube because it was asked to, left brain has no knowledge of that. So when the Rubik's cube is passed into the hand controlled by left brain, how does left brain know to even receive the item? Is it acting on habit - i.e. it's so used to cooperating with left brain and body parts that it accepts things left brain offers? And in that case, is the incorrect explanation from left brain influenced by what it thinks right brain wants? For favourite colour - is each side influenced by what it thinks the other prefers?

I suspect viral marketing techniques like anthropomorphising body parts is taking away slightly from the truth. It's a fun conclusion that captures the imagination to say that there are two entities, one in thrall to the other, but we are talking about a malfunctioning brain so the conclusions need careful consideration. These type of things can be a little economical with the truth to paint a better picture, I know the physics ones are on occasion.

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.