At Go Fug Yourself, "pizza" is code for the sheer dress trend. #itgoesdeeperthanyouthink
Any least the new National Security Advisor will be able to investigate easily.
At least the NY Times seems willing to call the crazy lies out in so many words for once:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/-michael-flynn-trump-fake-news-clinton.html
This isn't even over. Bikers 4 Trump is reportedly pledging to investigate Comet during the inauguration, when they will be in town. What choice do they have after the Podestas planted a gunman as a false flag?
All I know is that the local nutcase whose mailing list I subscribe to (taking one for the team? entertainment? idiocy?) has been all-Pizzagate all the time for the last week.
After reading about it I'm quite sure that I don't want to eat any "Spirit Cooking." Performance artists All I know is that the local nutcase whose mailing list I subscribe to (taking one for the team? entertainment? idiocy?) has been all-Pizzagate all the time for the last week.
After reading about it I'm quite sure that I don't want to eat any "Spirit Cooking." Performance artists are worse than mimes who are worse than scary clowns, in my book.
3. I was heartened to discover that Go Fug Yourself is still around. That used to be on my go-to list a zillion internet years ago.
I know I am a dick for changing the subject, but I clicked over to this article about murre hunters and thought: ah, soothing low-stakes moral controversy, there are so many reasonable hunters, they haven't all taken up arms and hunted all game to extinction out of spite (although perhaps they're not suggestible or isolated enough yet and will get there soon). The conservation regime that has built a lot of triumphs out of "brink of extinction" situations is hard to fine-tune, and will get harder to fine-tune as mass extinction looms. I would have loved to see a great auk, though.
About the pizzagate thing, do they have any viable legal remedy? Any point in suing for libel?
Thanks for the turr article! Not too bad either. One horribly wrong stat (there's not even 350 bird species in NL), and a little bit of condescension about the accent about the accent. Also I forgot Shannon is a guy's name in Canada (as well as Kim).
Inside of a Kim, it's too dark to see a Shannon.
I've thought about this and the funny thing is, even if Hillary Clinton actually *was* running a child sex ring at a pizzeria in DC, I'd still think the worst and most corrupt candidate won the election. Admittedly, on those facts it would be a much closer question, and I'd have some sympathy for anyone whose moral intuitions ran the other way. (Mostly I'd have a lot more sympathy for anyone who decided to vote third party. At some point the lesser evil argument doesn't cut it.)
At some point the lesser evil argument doesn't cut it.
Right. That's why a certain subset of Trump supporters decided to circulate stories that Clinton was running a child sex ring. If Trump were just a little less evil, they would have gone back to the stories about the Clintons murdering people because of drugs.
Now we see the Second Amendment solutions inherent in the system.
13.1 Agreed. Her basement crawlspace can look like John Wayne Gacy's and I'd still think that.
We need to recognize that both sides have valid points and therefore crazed gunmen should only investigate unfounded internet rumors with transparent political motivations if they see them on Twitter and Reddit from different accounts.
Only verified accounts, though. Like those of National Security Advisors and so forth.
19 Speaking of which, have you seen these excerpts from his book?
https://mobile.twitter.com/sneakdoorbeta/status/802216477533343744
Terrifying.
Very polite death squads.
This is amazing. ABC's Jake Tapper privately tells Flynn Jr. that this is batshit and someone is going to get killed, and Flynn Jr. instantly goes public with the conversation, because he thinks it...what? So they're genuinely nuts. http://www.mediaite.com/online/jake-tapper-rips-into-flynn-jr-over-pizzagate-does-someone-have-to-die-before-you-take-this-sht-seriously/
It's not nuts if they're doing it deliberately to achieve a political end.
It's not clear that they are, though. They already won the election.
Shooting up pizzerias is admittedly a novel approach to winning the midterms. But then again, so is killing Medicare.
The point isn't to have the pizzeria shot up. That's just collateral damage. The point is to have people to enraged that shooting up a pizzeria is going to seem reasonable to somebody.
I think guys like Flynn Jr. are just doing it for the lulz, and pissing off "liberal media" types like Tapper proves that they're succeeding.
I remember some time ago similar allegations being made about George H W Bush and his circle in the White House. Could this be another case of projection? (I'm not suggesting those allegations aren't as kooky as these but then again...where's my varmint gun?)
22: hoo-wee, the comments there are kind of special. I guess they would be unexceptional if I were in the habit of reading Breitbart and the like.
Man, I'm never moving back.
30: You're giving way too much credit to the people pushing this theory. They are tinfoil-hat, sandwich board-level manic conspirators.
I'd guess that most people who have cottoned onto pizzagate just really fucking hate gay people. The root of this mess is simple homophobia: the owner of the shop, a friend!, is an out gay man and posts pictures from his out gay life on Instagram and used to be partners with Kcorb Divad.
I can't explain the Flynns' attraction to this conspiracy. There's no way that Flynn or Flynn Jr. sincerely believes that the Clintons, Podestas, and poor Marina Abramović are running a satanic sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor. But Flynn, at least, has expressed moderate views or declined to say anything on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It's super-bizarre that they're on this tip.
Sorry if this has already been said: I'm super-annoyed that the news reports are characterizing this as a "fake news" story. Fake news is Obamaphones or, well, the AP report on the Clinton Foundation*. But the Comet story was somewhere on the spectrum between malicious slander and urban legend come to life. Nobody without a mental illness could read the stories and think, "Yes, this is plausibly something happening on this earth."
The Slacktivist has brought up the old stories about Proctor & Gamble and Satanism, and that the people who spread the stories were not in the least bit confused as to whether the stories were true. They considered them true in the same sense that stories about famous celebrities and gerbils were true. If the term "fake news" is supposed to mean anything**, it can't just be a new term for ass-gerbils.
*OK, that's facetious, but my point is that it's plausibly tied to real life
**I'm willing to believe that there really is a noteworthy, distinct phenomenon. There are certainly stories on the internet that A. look like news, B. aren't true, and C. aren't obviously false. Granted, "obviously false" is a moving target, because we want to believe slanderous things about our opponents, and because it seems that people are more credulous than I'd have guessed, but still. C'mon.
I think that people spreading this kind of thing aren't necessarily convinced it's true, but believe it's within the realm of possibility and it hurts their enemies, the combination of which is enough to do the work of truth.
Right--the goal isn't to convince anyone of the truth of the Podestas' Satanic margherita child-sex parties, it's to generate so much noise that Jake Tapper decides to ask John Podesta whether he has ever attended a Satanic margherita child-sex party. This is an old script (see: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) but as with all the old ways, the fever swamp has made it a mockery and someone is going to get hurt as a result.
They're playing slots. You hit "share" and all your horrible friends light up, and the little ramp drops down with a pellet on it.
I can't explain the Flynns' attraction to this conspiracy. There's no way that Flynn or Flynn Jr. sincerely believes that the Clintons, Podestas, and poor Marina Abramović are running a satanic sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor. But Flynn, at least, has expressed moderate views or declined to say anything on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It's super-bizarre that they're on this tip
I don't see why it's so impossible for them to believe that. Flynn pere has spouted some crazy conspiratorial shit before and Flynn fils just seems to be a grade-A alt-right asshole along all sorts of axes. Maybe he doesn't believe it in his heart of hearts, as it were, but he's at best indifferent to its truth.
Margarita- associated with rapist hordes overwhelming us from the south
Margherita- Code word in a gay child sex trafficking ring
Coincidence? COME ON SHEEPLE!
Why are there so many horrible children involved with this new administration? Have we (/Americans) ever had this many duly elected/appointed officials getting their offspring involved? Am I forgetting the Bush kids spouting off or did Janet Reno have kids that were somehow involved in her job?
First theory: there used to be more childless people in government because that's the only way women could be appointed/elected. Now that no one cares about women, only men will be appointed/elected. And because this is the Republicans, there are a lot more children (because Evangelicals) with horrible beliefs and values that they think are really important (because Evangelicals).
So this may or may not be the time to say that I'm so fucking angry with Clinton for all but disappearing from public life after the election. She is afaict completely abdicating her responsibility to her majority of US voters to organize resistance. They (we) voted for her to lead them. Or am I wrong? Contrast with what the Trump camp would be doing if roles were reversed. But in this unprecedented moment when Trump has for once let go the monopoly on outrage, the Dems are blowing it. They should seize the electoral vote to announce a massive organizing drive -- it's embarrassingly late but it would be something.
So this may or may not be the time to say that I'm so fucking angry with Clinton for all but disappearing from public life after the election.
I think that was smart, actually. I don't think she's a good figure for people to rally around at the moment -- outrage isn't her strong point*, and I don't know that Democrats want her as a figurehead.
But I agree, it's a good opportunity for somebody to try to step up as a national leader.
* In part for sexism-related reasons; righteous anger is a harder emotion for women to pull off.
I don't think it's obvious that Clinton being publicly active would help. Maybe, maybe not. She should certainly help raise funds and organize. I really hope Obama sticks around though.
Apparently Obama explicitly asked her to not raise a public fuss. Which is the most Obama thing possible, of course.
Not that she's obligated to do what he says, but he was effectively her patron during the race, and absent some clear reason to do otherwise*, I"m not sure it would make sense for her to ignore him.
*which, in Kendzior terms, there is, but this isn't Bush-Gore; she would get destroyed by the press for doing anything to publicly oppose Trump. It's also possible that it would have played out differently if the huge PV gap had been known on 11/9, but the EV gap was so big on 11/8 that there was really no hook for doing anything but conceding and receding.
41: I strongly disagree. At a bare minimum she should formally hand over the reins to a successor as party leader. She looks like a loser now because she stood by and let it happen. Of course the winloss causes cognitive dissonance, but why should the GOP have the privilege of resolving it? Again: just imagine what Trump and his people would be doing if they had won the popular vote and lost the election (other than running around with guns and burning Washington to the ground). Daily "never forget" emails at a minimum.
I'd like to see more from the top of the Dem party in general. I still have hopes that Obama is planning something big, but that's probably futile. But yes, where the fuck are they? Where is she? Someone here wrote that Democrats won't even take their own side in a fight, and that's what it feels like to me.
There are some great examples (Warren, Sanders, the CA legislature) of standing up to this, but yeah. I'd like to see them act like an election was stolen from them.
she would get destroyed by the press
I don't believe that. It is common knowledge, but common knowledge has been resoundingly wrong this year. I think authenticity would help her; even authentic anger would be fine. It is her caution that makes it hard for people to connect with her.
Anyway, I no longer believe in anything about "what happens", because it was all fucking wrong.
Someone here wrote that Democrats won't even take their own side in a fight, and that's what it feels like to me.
Attributed to Robert Frost.
33: I agree that the people pushing this story are more evil than stupid, but I would cut the average person a little slack. We've seen stories that sound absurd but have been shown to be true -- the Catholic Church, Hastert, the horrors from the UK [0]. If I hadn't had the time to read about the back story, I wouldn't be able to categorically say there wasn't something going on. Is that insane? And anyway, are people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia really the best point of reference here?
[0] http://www.vice.com/read/a-look-back-at-the-pedophilia-scandals-that-swallowed-britain-whole-in-2014
I think authenticity would help her; even authentic anger would be fine. It is her caution that makes it hard for people to connect with her.
I just think about the fact that, during the race, whenever Bill Clinton would make headlines it was never helpful.
If you just asked me, I would love to hear that Hilary Clinton was on TV talking about how the election results were a betrayal of the American people (both of the majority who voted for her, and of the shared values of the country), but I just don't see that ending well.
Heck, the Trump campaign is already dismissing criticism as just sour grapes.
I am processing 43.1 calmly and serenely.
But seriously, there's a fuss and then there is a calm acknowledgement that there were two competing visions of America at stake in the election and everyone who voted for hers, and anyone else who wants or needs it, is welcome to her support and the Democratic party's advocacy. Let's all strive to bring about a fair and open society and prevent descent into one party rule. If that's too divisive... Well for real wtf.
everyone who voted for hers, and anyone else who wants or needs it, is welcome to her support and the Democratic party's advocacy
That is excellent phrasing. I do think that's a good message.
Y'all are lunchin.' The press has typically been hostile to Clinton. The media would destroy her if she tried to do something now--and do what? I can't even imagine what she could do.
The Democratic Party has no one in place to take up the reins. Debbie Wasserman Schultz left the DNC in great shape, financially, but its bench is shallow and it's not even clear where the Party is supposed to recruit from. Mayors' offices.
It's bad! Things are bad.
The media would destroy her
What could they do at this point that they haven't already tried? Maybe finally publish proof of one of their bullshit allegations?
Pessimist. The republicans had Jeb! or Cruz to choose from, and they found a candidate. Mayor, Governor, house member, shit what about Al Franken who has been on television-- someone who looks good and supports sanity and civility is all that's necessary.
I don't see individual candidates as the main issue, rather regional decline, an agrresive retreat from reality, and the possibility of real damage in the next four years.
She could give a speech and say, "You don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore."
What the media would do would be to refuse to actually broadcast or report her statements/speeches/appearances, and instead have on 3 Republicans and 1 Cokie Roberts to talk about how awful it is, how it proves that the Clintons have never had any respect for institutions, how it shows why The American People voted against her, etc. etc.
Point being, it would have almost none of the intended effect, and would instead be used to further marginalize Democrats.
Now, I do think it might have been possible, in the aftermath of the post-election protests, for her to have figured out some sort of action that would have piggy-backed on that moment/energy/news in a way that would have communicated "leader of popular movement" not "sore loser". But that would have been an incredibly fine needle to thread, and remember, nobody was expecting this outcome. I'd guess that there were at least some backup plans for another Florida 2000, but the actual outcome was quite literally unanticipated by anyone. So it's not as if she just needed to make a few phone calls in order to, say, arrange a huge NYC demonstration that ended up in Central Park (or maybe Bill's office in Harlem), where she shows up and everybody goes nuts and the press has to take it seriously on its own terms.
Everyone was shellshocked, nobody had gamed it out, and, let's be honest: there's no actual, realistic path to her winning. So it's not even clear what her message would be other than "Shit is fucked up and bullshit." I don't think it's realistic to expect her (or any other plausible Dem Presidential candidate) to take the Kendzior line.
She could give a speech and say, "You don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore."
Or maybe a "My cat Socks" speech.
To be clear, I'm not saying "boo hoo, the press is against us, we shouldn't do anything." I'm saying that HRC specifically would have almost zero chance of leading in a way that would advance liberal goals.
Don't forget that you had 10-20% of her electorate absolutely slobbering to blame her for the loss. Maybe that MSNBC panel would include a liberal to attack her form the left as well: "After completely failing to understand the voters' desire for change, it's utterly inauthentic for Clinton to pose as the leader of some sort of popular movement..." I mean, I could literally write a script for the entire segment, and in 20 minutes there wouldn't be one Dem- or liberal-friendly utterance.
She could give a speech and say, "You don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore."
Even Hillary Clinton's got the highway blues.
Leaders emerge, or they don't. Bernie came from out of nowhere, as did Warren. Alan Grayson looked for awhile like he was going to be somebody, but that didn't pan out.
Sherrod Brown? Jamie Raskin? Who knows?
But whoever it is, Job No. 1 is to take on the media, and Hillary can't do that any more. The time for her to do that was before her defeat.
Leaders emerge, or they don't.
This strikes me as pretty naïve. Leaders can also be trained and cultivated and if the Ds were a party with half a thought for the future they'd be (and have been doing) just that for some time.
61: But I think the point is that a lot of it is contingent. Your rising star loses a fluke election, is out of office when she should have taken a step forward, and ends up never having a real chance. Or he's a compulsive sexter. Or he gets in a small airplane.
Further, who advances and who doesn't isn't under control of just the party and voters, either. The GOP pushed Jindal so hard, and the guy is toast because, well, a bunch of reasons, but one of them is that NBC decided not to cancel 30 Rock.
I mean, you're right that building a bench is the job of the party, and Dems seem to do it poorly; we can debate why that is. But it's also true that the best-laid plans &c.
one of them is that NBC decided not to cancel 30 Rock.
Is there a story behind this?
Okay. I accept that sacrificing Clinton is the overwhelming desire of the party, and it is also the party's only idea at the moment. It still looks to me like doubling down on a loss. Intermittent reinforcement from the press seems to keep the Democrats begging like mad.
64: Do I need to keep reminding you that "Yesterday's gone"?
Hillary's heard the song enough times. She knows.
63: A little joke. When Jindal did the response to the SOTU, everyone said he was like Kenneth from 30 Rock, an obviously absurd figure. If he'd actually been a good governor, then he might have overcome it, but his star really stopped rising then.
I mean, it was a bad performance regardless, but I think the reason it had legs was the Kenneth the Page jokes. A good pol overcomes those things, but an average pol who's been groomed doesn't.
Is this article about Comet Ping Pong accurate, armsmasher?
65: I think we're talking past each other, but I'm not sure how or why. "Yesterday's Gone" sounds different under a totalitarian regime, no? I'm being flippant, yes, but that is my point: the electoral win may be a lost cause, but the desire for Democratic leadership has been very clearly expressed, even if the Dems are the most neggable party in human history and keep putting their nicest voters in the friend zone or whatever, ANALOGY BAN NOT A BAN ON JOKES
Anyway, good, let's talk about reforming the media. How indeed have the media been deformed? What would constant vigilance against deformation look like?
67 That sounds like an awesome place.
67: That's a really sweet local take--a tribute to the restaurant, which is a rare special place. And I think it drives at the point that #pizzagate is primarily a forum for irrational homophobia. Is there a stronger word than homophobia? Outright anti-queer hatred.
the place seems great! I wanna buy a T-shirt and support them--somebody print T-shirts...
the close conflation of kid-friendly and hip is weird though; and by that, I ONLY mean that this particular combo did not exist when I was approximating hip in the 90s; the place is a little hard to "read" for me
71: oh, that reminded me of some ridiculous controversy involving someone complaining about kids at a bar? was that you, armsmasher?
Another good article at Slate! This one I can vouch for (as a Jew with close ties to Israel).
74: Actually, I've hardly ever been there. I suppose I work with people that live there.
What's the context for the Dublin references? My parents lived in several townhouses there, and my nephew worked at Muirfield. I remember when there was nothing but a crossroads there, in the 60s, with the old houses down at the riverbank and a few stores & gas stations on 161. By the 90s, unrecognizable.
What's the context for the Dublin references?
Nostalgia, deliberate obfuscation, and me.
76: In the other thread they're planning a Dublin meet-up. Moby and I are pretending we don't know about this alleged other Dublin.
77: Were you thinking of "The Rainbow Connection"?
76: Yes, it's a very fancy suburb now. I was trying to connect with WCW voters by emphasizing how rarely I go there.
We used to go to the movies all the time there, before they opened up Lennox.
This was in the Before Time, when there was still a City Center Mall and Kaisch hadn't laid-off everyone I know.
I'd ride through on my bike in the 60s. My Civil Air Patrol Squadron would practice rappelling in the ravine just North of 161. Just a sleepy crossroads with a small number of really old buildings.
WCW voters
William Carlos Williams voters.
News that the Pentagon is reworking its budget to account for the major threat from Russia; no idea what will happen after inauguration.
Best pizzagate tweet yet; 2003: Rifle-toting Americans barge into Iraq after reading viral Fake News story about weapons of mass destruction. @MazMHussain
I have been lurking here since the election and I am getting tired of all the introspection about what the Democrats could have done differently but here is how I see it.
1. Trump and his party brought lying to a level probably never seen before. Democrats cannot compete on the lying front because it is not who we are (I hope).
2. There are no simple answers to complicated problems. A saying I like and have used is "if you have a simple answer to a complicated problem, it just means you don't understand the problem." To that I might now add "or you don't care about the problem and will say anything to get elected". Soundbites are rarely truthful simply because the truth is more complicated than can be communicated in a soundbite.
3. Really wealthy people have the resources to outmaneuver everyone else and in the process make themselves wealthier and more powerful. The legal system works for these people because they have the money to use it.
I am stopping there. We just cannot compete with the lies and disingenuous solutions without giving up the very things that make us what we are. I am so depressed.
So Hillary doesn't want to lead right now, but, if she did, a good way to do it would be to go for a slice of pizza at Comet Ping Pong.
With anchovies, to show that she isn't there for something that tastes good.
Oh well, Flynn Jr has been given his cards, not tht anybody on twitter will notice.
Calling Pizzagate a conspiracy theory or schizophrenic delusion isn't taking it seriously enough. Set aside for a second the crazy, completely baseless story they've made up to justify their actions. Pretend it's a movie with the sound muted, or in a foreign language, and just think about what we're seeing. People harassing and attacking supporters of their political opponent? This is literally brownshirt tactics.
88: All of that seems true to me. On the other hand, people I approve of have won elections in other times and places, so it has to be possible. It's maddening picking at it, but there have to be things we can do.
87 is so great. I want that on, like, a mug or t-shirt or something. Or tatooed all over my right-wing dad's motherfucking face.
s/b "tattooed"*
Although I'm leaving in all the misspellings on my dad's involuntary face tattoo.
*god, that still doesn't look right.
"The intel on this wasn't 100 percent," he said.