Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I'm sure there are people who take their drinking games seriously, maybe even too seriously.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm sure there are people who take their drinking games seriously, maybe even too seriously.

When you're in too deep

[smjjames]

I'm sure there are people who take their drinking games seriously, maybe even too seriously.

When you're in too deep

I don't drink liquor or do drinking games anyway

[Frumple]

Hey, you can always substitute water or something. Still gets you plenty sick plenty quick.

... you can't really keep up with a political debate, though. Not with water. I tried it, once. It... didn't go great. And that was with a ruleset that would ping significantly less than anything suggested so far.

[mainiac]

Large quantities of milk are actually pretty brutal to drink in a short amount of time.

[scriver]

Hey, you can always substitute water or something. Still gets you plenty sick plenty quick.

... you can't really keep up with a political debate, though. Not with water. I tried it, once. It... didn't go great. And that was with a ruleset that would ping significantly less than anything suggested so far.

I believe I have told you before of the story of the girl who didn't drink alcohol during a summertime game of booze poker yet ended up being the one who had to visit the hospital that evening because of a case of acute water poisoning.

[smirk]

-snip-

That is way, way too many rules for a soon-to-be smashed person to remember. I'm just gonna go with the old standby of "drink whenever a candidate's face appears onscreen".

[mainiac]

Eventually you will throw enough beer containers at the screen to break it and then you can stop drinking.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Like with all drinking games, a rule only matters when anybody playing remembers it.

[mainiac]

So evidence has come to light that Trump did in fact use his "charity" as a personal slush fund in an illegal fashion.  One such payment was $400,000 he received from Comedy Central.  Trump took payments including these ones and claimed to renounce the income under an obscure 1942 tax law court case precedent so he wouldn't have to pay taxes on it.  However the precedent clearly established that the person had to have no control over where the money ends up.  However Trump made sure the money went to the Trump Foundation which he used as a personal piggy bank.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-directed-23-million-owed-to-him-to-his-charity-instead/2016/09/26/7a9e9fac-8352-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html

We are now past the smoking gun phase.  We have the smoking gun ($400k from CC) and forensics is putting the bullets in little evidence baggies (which are the self-portraits and Tim Teebows helmet I guess).  All we need now is for a reporter to talk to one of the hundreds of people who have directed money to the Trump foundation and get them to say that Trump explicitly instructed them to give the money to his foundation.  Which given the truly ridiculous number of people donating money to this sham "charity" should certainly be possible.  Of course no one is doing that because the entire fucking press corps is piggybacking on the one journalist in the entire world who is investigating this.  It's not so much a problem that the media is biased as that the media isn't doing what we think of it's traditional role.

And in case anyone was wondering why so many people donated money to the Trump foundation, this is it.

So, anyone find a particularly good stream yet? Right now I'm sitting on the NBC one, but I know I can do better.

I am doing NBC myself.  What makes one stream better then another?

[mainiac]

I have changed my mind and will be exclusively following the updates on Chelsea Peretti's twitter account.

[Rolan7]

I usually just use Youtube.  The live comments can be kinda fun, in a "how did these people manage to set up AOL and operate a keyboard" way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9m_hzXE7f4

[Starver]

Of course no one is doing that because the entire fucking press corps is piggybacking on the one journalist in the entire world who is investigating this.  It's not so much a problem that the media is biased as that the media isn't doing what we think of it's traditional role.

Sounds like they've gone for a reliable stringer rather than doing parachute journalism. Though you'd think they'd have had qualified staff journos (and the prep time to lau ch them), and it does look like it has turned into a pack of groupthink addicts, if what you say is true.

[mainiac]

Of course no one is doing that because the entire fucking press corps is piggybacking on the one journalist in the entire world who is investigating this.  It's not so much a problem that the media is biased as that the media isn't doing what we think of it's traditional role.

Sounds like they've gone for a reliable stringer rather than doing parachute journalism. Though you'd think they'd have had qualified staff journos (and the prep time to lau ch them), and it does look like it has turned into a pack of groupthink addicts, if what you say is true.

But this is an area where parachute journalism totally makes sense.  You get the list of everyone who has given big bucks to the Trump Foundation, call them up and ask them if he instructed them to direct money to the foundation.  After you have ten or twelve people say yes you interview them and do an exclusive.  Wham, bam, thank you mam.  It's not quite a pulitzer prize winner (unless there is something even more scandalous) but it's an important investigation that needs to get done.

I dont think groupthink is a good word.  I think it's the disappearance of investigative journalism like John Oliver documented in the segment on the decline of news.

[smjjames]

I'm watching CNN anyways, and everybody is going to be streaming it or otherwise.

May also try to keep an eye on 538...