Swagnarok

If an American refers to himself as a nationalist, the most straightforward meaning is that he's an American nationalist. No reason to automatically assume he means white nationalism.

That makes no sense. If democrats are bad and republicans are good, why would that particular piece of propaganda encourage the viewer NOT to vote?

"I'm 1/64th-1/1000th Native American so suck on that Trump!"

-Elizabeth Warren

Homework is necessary to ensure that students understand the core concepts covered by the class before the exams. The only alternative is that the homework be done in class, in which case either the school day would be longer or there'd be less time for lectures, in which case the school year would end with students having learned less.

I don't.

The biggest event of the year that nobody's talking about.

In response the War in Donbass and the annexation of the Crimea, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has asked the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (the highest authority in Eastern Orthodoxy) for autocephalous status.

This request was granted. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is now recognized as being independent of the Moscow Patriarchate. In response, the Russian Orthodox Church has severed ties with Constantinople.

That is, Russia has excommunicated itself from the global Eastern Orthodox community (though it's possible that this situation could be resolved soon). There are two ways of looking at this:

1. This is a good thing for the West. Russia's just suffered a majority propaganda loss; the Eastern Orthodox populations of Georgia, Serbia, Belarus, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania, and so on might have in the past seen Russia as the protector of Orthodoxy. However, now that Russia is cut off from such, this might spur them to keep away from Russia and find new partners.

2. This is a bad thing for the West. Moscow is trying to assert its dominance over Constantinople and thus over all of Eastern Orthodoxy, something that it last tried with limited success from 1448-1589. Should he succeed, the gains for Putin would be massive.

At the clear risk of sounding xenophobic, I think it's kind of disturbing that we have a First Lady who speaks with a Slavic, Russia-ish accent. Melania has conducted herself pretty well, but let's be honest: Trump imported a mail-order bride from an exotic country. It sets a very bad example for America.

Plurality=/=majority

For example, let's say it boiled down to something like this:

Fox News (Right)-30℅ of share

CNN (Center Left)-28℅ of share

Yahoo (Left)-22℅ of share

MSNBC (Left)-11℅ of share

Washington Post (Left)-9℅ of share

That'd be a 70℅ share for the overall Left, though Fox News being the biggest channel might still be true, simply because among conservatives there was a lesser degree of dispersion among various outlets.

They're not the same. PM me if you want to hear more about this.

Let's be clear: nobody accepts or rejects God simply because of "logic". Logic is a justification, but there are always other reasons. There are things people want, things that trump rationality. Maybe it's a desire to be unique, or to feel yourself superior. Maybe it's the opposite: maybe you're more afraid than you are proud. Afraid of hell, or simply of dying. You can always find some way to justify believing if that's what you want. And those justifications can't be dismissed entirely, so...

Because in the end, not believing gives you nothing. Absolutely nothing. It gives you temporary relief but nothing in the long term. That's why hardcore atheism will never triumph over the masses.

I mainly use "Marxist" as a term of abuse, same way as many Trump supporters are labeled as "Nazis" even though they're nowhere even remotely close to Nazism, and how white nationalists are inaccurately labeled white supremacists quite frequently, even though there is actually a big difference.

Also, I use Marxism as synonymous with far-left politics. Traditionally this has taken the form of economic left-wing politics, but in modern times it takes the form of far-left identity politics, which the "mainstream" press definitely ascribes to.

From roughly the same place as preferences such as long hair, tomboy cut, blonde, brunette, tall, short, etc. A lot of guys are attracted to Asian women, just based on how they look, and that has little to do with cultural or social factors.

If you're generally not attracted to the physical traits of most members of a certain group, then that's simply a matter of preference. However, if you were to find a member of that group who was attractive to you and you still would not date them on some kind of racial "principle", then yes, it is, and it's wrong.

That being said, accompanying racial differences is often a difference in background that might in some circumstances justify keeping your distance.

I would like to eat raisins to boost my health, but they have 20g of sugar per little packet, so...

Today we have this lovely article by The Guardian on Nikki Haley:

Happy harsh transition of Neolithic populations to the modern era day.

Hi. Have you ever seen this video?

This kind of extreme, over-the-top kind of reaction to the fairly routine confirmation of one man, highly qualified, a conservative replacing a conservative, whose otherwise spotless reputation is questioned only by a series of wholly uncorroborated allegations, to a Court of nine people, is exactly why the majority of Americans will reject your party in November.

Your people have spent this entire confirmation process lying, screaming, b!tching, threatening, and thoroughly discrediting themselves and their movement through their actions. In the process, they've taken the good names of actual sexual assault survivors and dragged them through the mud in some half-baked attempt to destroy Kavanaugh's life and derail his political career. The good people of this country have been watching closely, and they won't forget when they head to the polls.

Actions have consequences. Behaving like toddlers for the whole world to see has consequences. And one day a righteous God will make you answer for what you've done.

#BeersForBrett

In an eloquent and lengthy speech, Sen. Susan Collins has (as of several minutes ago) lain out her reasons for why she will be voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Combined with Jeff Flake, who has also stated his willingness to vote for the SCOTUS nominee, this raises the vote tally to 50-50, which would, with Vice-President Pence's tie-breaking vote, be enough. Shortly afterwards, Sen. Joe Manchin also announced his intentions to vote for Kavanaugh's nomination, raising the vote tally to 51-49.

That is, unless there is a new development in between now and the date of confirmation (probably Saturday), or unless there's something big going on behind the scenes that I'm not aware of, Justice Kavanaugh WILL BE SUCCESSFULLY CONFIRMED, filling Justice Kennedy's now vacant seat.

This is shaping out to be a defining moment in the MeToo movement. If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, we as a nation will have placed a ceiling on how damaging unproven allegations of sexual assault are to the careers of high-ranking male government bureaucrats and politicians. This is a limit that we need to have in place, especially since these allegations appear to be extremely lopsided, with the vast majority of these "scandals" only hitting conservatives and Republicans.

That is, the Overton Window will be fixed for possibly decades to come, in regards to this one issue. It'll be a major victory for the GOP and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party (though the appointment of a conservative to the Supreme Court will be damaging to them, though again Kavanaugh would merely be replacing a conservative seat on the Court). It'll make it less likely that radical firebrands like Ocasio-Cortez will dominate the future of the party, which will slow the ongoing polarization of our nation.

If Kavanaugh should lose, then it will be construed as a victory for MeToo, though not a huge one as, in all likelihood, Kavanaugh would only fail to pass by a slim margin, like 49-51 or maybe 48-52. In this case, Republicans will still have a chance of curbing a nationwide pivot to the sharp left by means of winning (or not losing badly) the midterms, holding on to enough seats that Trump cannot be impeached. Should the Blue Wave be averted entirely, that would be a harsh rebuke to those naysayers who've been telling us for close to two years now that the Trump presidency has been a complete unmitigated disaster. That is, the fact that Trump might be effectively given a public mandate to complete his first term, after all that has happened, would in itself mark a shift of the Overton Window to the right for the foreseeable future.

...And so it seems that both Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are pro-abortion. Dang it.

Two of three GOP holdouts, Susan Collins and Jeff Flake, have expressed satisfaction with the scope and quality of the 7th FBI investigation into Kavanaugh. It's been suggested that the final confirmation vote might come as early as this Saturday.

Today, the gross turds with Yahoo wrote a piece complaining about the fact that people can't "opt out" of the emergency presidential alert system (which would instantly warn a hundred million Americans if, say, North Korea suddenly launched a nuclear attack) just because Trump's currently the president.

Article here:

Not me. Which is a shame.

I'm not a mod, but in this case I don't see why the purpose behind his content should make it objectionable. The actual nature of the content is more important. After all, just about everyone here would like to convince somebody else of a position on an issue that they have.

Some factors that should go into judging whether it's inappropriate:

I. Does he say the same thing so frequently that there's little distinction between him and a spammer?

2. Does he respond to feedback?

3. If so, does he attempt to use reason, or at least the semblance of reason, to convince the parties objecting to his message?

Here Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps the most progressive justice on the Court, criticizes the hyperpartisan nature of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings:

So you're an American expatriate living in Ghana?

Trump has ordered another FBI probe of Kavanaugh, the man's seventh of its kind, which will last less than a week. Though it's very unlikely that they'll find anything (as they found nothing the first six times), it's a major concession to the Democrats, who'll likely just vote unanimously against Kavanaugh anyways, and, more importantly, to "moderate" Republicans like Jeff Flake.

The GOP controls 51 out of 100 seats in the Senate. If one Republican defects, then it'll be 50-50, and Kavanaugh will be confirmed by Vice-President Mike Pence's tie-breaking vote. If two Republicans defect, then Kavanaugh will not be getting his seat.

This was a time when the canon New Testament was being formulated and lots of preachers were going around trying to gain a following. In addition, many forgeries of supposed "extra Gospels" besides the four that we now recognize ".

Quite simply, if anybody in those early years (before they started writing stuff down) recounted the content of the Book of Revelation in such a way that they included stuff that wasn't actually included originally, it could accidentally end up in the official telling of the work for all time afterwards. Nobody would be able to tell the difference, after all. Such false passages might include incorrect teachings, which could lead the reader astray into sin or otherwise error.

To prevent this, the writer inserted a strong warning that to do such a thing would yield punishment.

Probably like "shell".

How about "Chaelle" for a girl?

Here's a piece/hagiography by The Guardian on Christine Blasey Ford, whose accusations are totally unproven. This article also makes mention of Anita Hill, whose allegations were also unproven, and casts her also as a hero. And for good measure it also throws in the possible repeal of Roe v. Wade as an evil act of misogyny cause, you know, those anti-abortion people obviously just do it for the kicks.

That's just who journalists are: they'll destroy a man's good name and them mock him afterwards, all because they disagree with his politics. Why? Because the people who we trust to tell us the news are Marxists. Nothing is sacred, nothing is too dirty, so long as they succeed in dismantling every aspect of this country that does not conform to their extremist agenda.

Never mind the fact that his reputation is in shambles on account of these totally unproven allegations, the fact that he would have that seat right now if not for those purported "victims" of his coming out of nowhere to slander him with no evidence whatsoever.

As I said in the OP, Kavanaugh was vetted by the FBI on six separate occasions. And every single time he was cleared by them.

Just so you know, I'm not gonna be able to participate at any time before this coming Monday.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is, at the time of posting, testifying before the Senate. At the opening of such he issued a lengthy statement defending his reputation and repudiating the allegations levied by Mrs. Ford.

This statement can be read here:

Kavanaugh is extremely lucky in that he was able to provide extensive documentation of his day-to-day whereabouts in his high school years in the form of calendars, which served also as diaries. The calendars should be enough to prove that Kavanaugh was never at the party that is at the core of Mrs. Ford's accusation. He has been investigated by the FBI already on 6 different occasions, all of which were standard background checks. None turned up any dirt on the man Brett Kavanaugh.

I don't know how this is ultimately going to turn out. But I have a feeling that most Americans are skeptical of the allegations. In the comments section of a recent Yahoo article about Kavanaugh (this was yesterday), the comments were pro-Kavanaugh at least 10 to 1, even though normally the majority of commentators for this media outlet are rabidly anti-Trump.

So at this time I am *very cautiously* optimistic that justice will prevail and Mr. Kavanaugh will get his seat on the highest Court of this land that he so rightly deserves. Then again, only time will tell.

The vote on his confirmation is scheduled for tomorrow at 9:30 AM.

Unborn humans.

So you would've chosen Hitler winning the war?

I think we both know the answer to this question.

I'll phrase it another way:

If during WWII our only hope of defeating Hitler and stopping the Holocaust was to appoint to the position of Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces a man who had a history of sexual assault, would you object to such a decision?

That one or even several women might face the indignity of seeing their former assaulter appointed to the Supreme Court really wouldn't be bad enough to negate the positive benefit of seeing closed the extermin--*ahem* I mean abortion clinics in states where the majority of voters have exercised enough good moral judgment to recognize genocide when they see it.

Going with a "low" figure of 400,000+ abortions a year (though this figure is the result of a long decline, and it used to be as high as 1.5 million in the year 1983) that still amounts to more people than are killed in car accidents and gun violence combined.

The only way to move forward is to grill his initial accuser. If the Senate is able to poke enough holes in her testimony that hers seems implausible, then they can safely dismiss the charges from other people. Otherwise, they ought to consider just picking somebody else and getting it done really, really fast.

Liberals should keep in mind that the fact that more people have emerged to accuse Kavanaugh does NOT increase the likelihood that he is guilty.

BREAKING: She has agreed to testify. It will probably happen sometime next week.

That deadline is now 2:30 PM Saturday, presumably Washington time.

It is actually possible for a psychiatrist to trick his/her patients into remembering things that didn't actually happen. Usually it happens by accident, but I imagine somebody skilled at their craft could do it on purpose.

I was trying to sound like a Russian bot on the comments section of a Yahoo article (though, I guess they're no more likely to be bots than the people who say "Trumpanzees").

Yes comrade give me your personal information and social security number. I will not give to third party. I am not Russian bot working since 2013 to subvert Western democracies. #pizzagate #libtards #MAGA