Print

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

[Starver]

Meanwhile, Trump is endorsing books.

[Reelya]

Doesn't Trump only endorse books about Trump? That's the most boring reading list ever.

[Kagus]

You see, there's this book...

It's yuge.

[SalmonGod]

To note, since there's some ambiguity here- the concern isn't that Assange leaked the information. The concern is that he deliberately acquired the information on the behalf of Trump to help out his campaign (quite possibly directly contacted in this regard by the campaign), and then released it.

The problem isn't that Russia was "involved," but that Russia was directly contacted to make this arrangement happen, on the behalf of the Trump campaign. Obviously we do not have any specific evidence of this, but there's a lot of pieces that are starting to fit this narrative. It'd be like the New York Times specifically going out of their way to acquire dirt on Trump as requested by the Clinton campaign, to help them out.

In short, it's nothing less than the politicization of the press as a tool to use against your enemies.

As an alternative, it could be that Russia deliberately gave Assange the emails, knowing that they would then be provided to Trump's campaign, without Assange directly knowing, possibly as negotiated separately between the Trump campaign (or elements of it) and Russia. Which isn't exactly much better; it just makes Assange a middleman.

Ok if Assange pro-actively went out of his way to procure this information in coordination with Trump and Russia, instead of merely publishing something that was provided to him, then the vitriol towards him is more understandable.  I didn't know that this was the accusation.

[Starver]

Doesn't Trump only endorse books about Trump? That's the most boring reading list ever.

You decide, but I think they're at least partly meant to be about anybody-but-Trump, even the ones that are Him Him Him:

.@SteveScalise has written an absolutely fascinating book (BACK IN THE GAME) on the world of D.C. politics, and more. He has experienced so much, in a short period of time. Few people have had his bravery or courage, and he has come all the way back. A big power and great person!

.@StephenMoore and Arthur Laffer, two very talented men, have just completed an incredible book on my Economic Policies or, as they call it, #TRUMPONOMICS....

.@DBongino’s new book, "Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump," is terrific. He's tough, he's smart, and he really gets it. His book is on sale now, I highly recommend!

With all of the new books coming out you can't forget two of the great originals written by @GreggJarrett and @JudgeJeanine Pirro. Their books both went to #1. Go get them now, the phony Witch Hunt is well explained!

(Consecutive Tweets. The latter one wasn't there when I first mentioned it.)

[Reelya]

I don't think there's evidence that Assange did anything special to get the material.

Also, another aspect is that a partisan site called DCLeaks was set up which started leaking the material about a month before Wikileaks did. But DCLeaks was doing smaller, intermittent leaks of the material. The material was already in the wild. Wikileaks then just file-dumped all the leaked emails at once. This was bad, but it actually prevented sites like DCLeaks being able to dribble out bits of the leaked material all the way up to the election date.

Wikileaks then released further material, but only on November 6th, which means no news outlets would have time to go through the material and affect the election at that point. If Wikileaks was in fact manipulating the data to aid Trump, then I think they wouldn't have done one big leak and released the rest of their material on the election date, they would have timed smaller leaks throughout the election.

[Lord Shonus]

So, apparently Trump is trying to ban bump-stocks and similar devices by executive action. In and of itself, this is not a problem - very few people oppose prohibitions on the things on principle, and all of the opposition has been on the grounds of "we need to make sure that this doesn't leave room to ban much more than we intended to, while still effectively targeting the things we've agreed to get rid of."

The problem is that this is pretty much the worst way to go about it.

[smjjames]

Not to mention that it's the weakest possible form of 'gun control', it's low hanging fruit so low that it's touching the ground.

And yet, the legislative attempt went nowhere....

[Lord Shonus]

And yet, the legislative attempt went nowhere....

It went nowhere because it was a bad bill. The wording was extremely vague, and could be interpreted so loosely as to justify a total ban on anything from triggers to ammunition.

[smjjames]

A ban on triggers would be... interesting to say the least.

[EnigmaticHat]

Its all good.  You just slam the gun against a wall repeatedly until the gunpowder goes off.  The magazine has padding so the round in the chamber is the first to go.

[Trekkin]

Its all good.  You just slam the gun against a wall repeatedly until the gunpowder goes off.  The magazine has padding so the round in the chamber is the first to go.

That, or just shovel ammunition into an oilcan fire pointed vaguely somewhere else*. As we all know, more guns make everything better; a gun that is constantly firing all the bullets that can physically fit inside it in random directions is therefore an admirably egalitarian panacea. Spraypaint it red, white, and blue* and NRATV will probably pay you for the privilege of advertising it*.


*do not do this. Do not do any of these things.

[Egan_BW]

Note that just tossing a round into a fire so that the powder explodes won't actually cause a bullet to fly out as if shot from a gun. The reason why the bullet reaches such deadly speed is because the barrel confines the expanding gases to only push the bullet forwards. Dumping your ammo into a barrel fire will make for less of a deadly weapon and more of an extremely underwhelming sparkler.

[Lord Shonus]

Rounds cooking off like that can be a danger if you're close enough. They won't reach the velocity they would from a gun, but they do have some force to them. I know a guy who shot himself in the leg because he tried to use a .22LR round as a fuse in his car.

[Rowanas]

Rounds cooking off like that can be a danger if you're close enough. They won't reach the velocity they would from a gun, but they do have some force to them. I know a guy who shot himself in the leg because he tried to use a .22LR round as a fuse in his car.

.22?  You mean the gunpowder shoulder-masseur?