Posts made by brettw97

If Democrats continue to push identity politics, and extreme Progressive values, while, simultaneously taking more money from Wall Street than the GOP, then it's game over.  If they embrace economic populism, ignore identity politics, and leave the GOP with immigration populism, it's a whole new ball game.

On the issue of Alex Jones.  Alex Jones is the internet's answer to the National Enquirer.  That said, the Enquirer was the same organization that broke the John Edwards sex scandal, among other political scandals.  Just because a source is considered entertainment doesn't mean the source can't do real news as well.  Just vet their stories very carefully, both the Enquirer and Alex Jones.

As a lawyer, here's the legality to the First Amendment.  You're free to act as a journalist, but if you use someone else's platform, they're free to kick you off for any reason.  If you start your own website, have your own server, you can do whatever the hell you want and have full 1A Constitutional Amendment protection.

Now, here's the part that have put Social Media Tech Stocks in legal jeopardy.  There's actually lawsuits over Dallas Police Massacre and Pulse Massacre pending because of it.  If a tech company provides a platform but doesn't unduly interfere on that platform, then the Tech Company enjoys immunity from any actions that occur in real life because of that speech.

Since Twitter and Facebook have been actively stamping out hate speech on the right while permitting ISIS to hold accounts and BLM to thrive, lawyers are arguing that their immunity has gone by the wayside because they have actually interfered in the organic flow of information.

These lawsuits have been permitted to go forward.  I look for the trial judges to permit these suits to be heard, and I honestly expect a victory at trial, but these are more litmus test cases, and the way platforms are given latitude based off these cases will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

The legal angle.  The problem with the allegations against Trump he is alleged to have done is actually a crime.  Collusion is damaging politically if made public, but not a crime.  BTW, RFK sent an emissary to see Khrushchev after JFK's death asking him not to engage Johnson, Nixon colluded with South Vietnam to ensure they didn't agree to a Peace Treaty, and Edward Kennedy asked for Soviet help in the 1984 election.  All embarrassing but not criminal.

As for General Flynn, talking with the Russians about potentially lifting sanctions isn't' a crime.  The Logan Act requires an actual diplomatic outcome to occur, and if that outcome happened on Trump's watch, then it wouldn't be considered interference under the law.  His real crime is not registering as a lobbyist for a foreign government, Turkey, which is a slap on the wrist fine, and the fine is rarely ever levied as long as you go back and fill out the paperwork.

The problem with all of the accusations against Trump is that, while damaging politically, no law was actually broken.  These are scandals in search of a crime.  Yeah, it's embarrassing, but that's all.

Live in the DC area.  Take this one with a grain of salt & try not to inject politics into it.  The initial reports was this was drinking by both sides got out of hand, and then after reviewing the perp's social media account, they decided whoops, there might be a hate crime.  I'm always suspicious when the initial report is so vastly different from what's being alleged.  The lawyer in me speaking.

I'm not arguing First Amendment rights.  I'm pointing out that with the internet anyone can become a journalist and utilize their First Amendment rights as a media outlet.  If traditional media is going to survive in this atmosphere, it is important that they be perceived by their audience as an unbiased umpire, which given the number of political cronies they hire, unlikely & give both sides of the political divide a fair shake in that they assign investigative reporters who actually want to see a story through to every allegation made by both sides.  Otherwise, their purpose as a credible neutral arbitrator of facts will cease to exist in the eyes of the public.  Without that credibility, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, et. al. will be as relevant as Buzzfeed and bloggers.

Sorry, I'm not buying.  Weiner has a long history well before this girl of doing really creepy shit along these lines.  It's also striking that Huma filed for divorce right after his plea tells me she only stayed married to ensure they'd have to plea out since spousal privilege would ensure she could never take the stand.

The real problem with fake stories runs deeper than Trump.  This election was one where Trump was the clear outsider, the guy the media did not want to see win.  Even FOX News was split on whether they wanted him.  Trump won much in the same way as FDR & JFK did: he used a new medium to bypass traditional media and project an image that the traditional media of the time could not control.  In FDR's case, the radio, JFK's case, the television, and in Trump's case, social media.

The real problem is that beginning probably in Bush's second term, social media started to evolve.  Yeah, Obama used it, but used it just to organize his own supporters to be subordinate to him.  Never before have we seen groups self-organize on the internet to back a candidate.

While this was going on, many media outlets, loss of ad revenue, had reverted to clickbait articles on their own in order to draw large audiences instead of insuring that they got the story right, which takes more time.  The problem is that when you get a story wrong, and you're likely to do so if you're too worried about being first is that you lose the only asset that is important in journalism: credibility.

So, when they turned a blind eye to Trump's massive social media reach, ignored the fact Hillary wasn't campaigning (yes, she lost because Trump flat outworked her, as she often was off the trail for days and even weeks at a time), told the country there's no way Trump could win, and then went into a meltdown when he did win, their credibility took a massive hit.

Both sides have fake articles.  Both sides have conspiracy theories.  Dems have Russian Collusion.  GOP has Seth Rich.  The traditional media pushes Russian Collusion, and calls Seth Rich a conspiracy theory.  There's valid points that deserve investigation in both.  Instead of assigning real investigative reporters to take their time, get to the bottom of these stories, and give an honest assessment as to what they find, traditional outlets are jumping the gun.  This is what is going to destroy traditional journalism.  Clickbait instead of an even-handed facts matter approach.

However, we shouldn't be surprised at this.  NBC gives contracts to the Bush and Clinton daughters.  ABC hires George Stephanopolus, a Clinton campaign aide and Clinton Foundation donor, and I could keep going, but the problem is that traditional media has tried to play inside baseball by hiring political hacks from both sides of the aisle instead of promoting real journalists based on merit.

So, it's no surprise to see traditional media on the way out.  The only question is what will replace it and how effective will it be.  I have no clue, but it's an interesting time to be alive.

First off, I'm not saying the reports are true or untrue.  Don't know.  Work as a lawyer in DC, went to school here for Undergraduate and Law degrees, and know many of the players through staffers I went to school with.  What I do know through knowing these people is that I would not trust Brennan, Clapper, or Susan Rice to dogsit for twenty minutes.  Brennan spied on Senate Staffers to see what they had on Bush era waterboarding, a clear violation of the law, and forced Dianne Feinstein to condemn him on the Senate floor, where btw, a good month of 2014 was spent discussing whether or not to fire Brennan.

Credibility matters when making accusations, and that's something that whatever shreds were left were destroyed in the passage of the Iran deal, after it was revealed and bragged about that the Intelligence Community intentionally misled Congress to secure the deal's passage.

It maybe true.  It might not be true.  Just don't get your hopes up.  Anyone who uses any of these three sources for anything will need serious corroboration.

@smarmquetnz:

@brettw97:

I'm a Trump supporter.  Let me explain why.  I own businesses, travel quite a bit, and have a law degree.

So… because you're rich and privileged.

Actually, yes.  I worked my ass off to become "rich & privileged."  I got scholarships and financial assistance, but I also worked three jobs in high school to save money for college, including waiting tables, worked my way through college to minimize the student loans, and my parents had to have three jobs to take care of my sister and I.  While in Middle School, during the Bush 41 Recession, I had to start cutting laws just to pay for my school clothes.  So, I earned what I have.

@brettw97:

In my travels in Western Europe, a place that is suppose to be the most liberal place for gay people on Earth, I have witnessed over the past several years real fear in the gay community because of migration, particularly Islamic migration, as the new migrants rather than assimilating into European culture have chosen to try to impose their values on Europe.

…And you espouse all the racist rhetoric you're fed.

1.  Western Europe, based upon the laws that exist is the most gay friendly place on Earth.
2.  Migrant gangs in Paris actually utilize social media to organize gauntlets to assault gays and women.  I got to witness one such incident prior to the French election in Paris.  Of course, we won't talk about Cologne, Germany either.
3.  It's not racist to say that a particular group of people do not respect basic right.  If that were the case, then by your definition, it would have been wrong to call out the KKK in the 1950's & 1960's because that was Southern culture, and human rights must be subordinated if it offends someone's culture.

@brettw97:

Anywhere you go in Europe, the younger the gay man, the more radically right they typically are.  At one gay bar in Paris before the French election, about 90% of the gay men there under the age of 30 were pro-Le Pen.

"Guys, I surrounded myself with people just like me and guess what - they agree with me!"

1.  I pointed out the age group of those who supported Le Pen.  I posted in the Le Pen section that there was a great divide in the age group of gays when I visited who supported/opposed LePen.  The lower the age range of a gay man in France, the more likely to be a Le Pen supporter.  The older, the more likely to be a Macron supporter.
2.  Despite this, there is great fear in the French community as to what Islam means for the future of gay rights in France because, yeah, that throwing people off buildings when the Bataclan, Lorries, and Charlie Hebdo has already happened.

@brettw97:

It's common sense.  As long as Islam is going to preach that throwing me from a building, stoning me to death, or beheading me because I'm gay is acceptable, then Islam is a greater threat to me than someone who just doesn't want to bake me a wedding cake.

If you think the worst of America's institutionalized homophobia is just some assholes not wanting to bake a cake, you're even more deluded than you've already proven yourself to be.  Republicans like Pence are literally gunning for removing rights of groups of people they don't like, not just gays.

@brettw97:

The Democratic Party, rather than condition Islamic acceptance on Islam's acceptance for human rights, continues to tell us how great and wonderful Islam.

When did this happen?  Is this what you learned from watching Fox News and reading Breitbart?

1.  If you would actually visit these places, and see the devolution up close and personal, combined with the trepidation it has brought to the gay community there, you might comprehend that this does not come from Fox News or Breitbart but from genuine fear in the people who actually live there.

@brettw97:

Without demanding real reform within Islam while

Wait… you think one political party can demand a reform of an entire religion?  Especially when the majority of the adherents of that religion live on the other side of the world?  LMAO!

1.  No one political party can demand reform of an entire religion. 
2.  No country has to be stupid enough to import intolerance.
3.  No country has to tolerate the expansion of a totalitarian cult bent on destroying the gains in human rights.
4.  This is our survival at stake.  While one political party wants to shun me, the other supports a group of idiots who want to kill me.  Shunning is a preferable alternative to death.

Retard.  You'll get what you deserve.

1.  If I'm a retard, then how come I'm smart enough to work my ass off to move up in the world?

Identity politics hurts all.  I'm a businessman, and my sexual orientation does not define the fact that my top priorities are for common sense tax and regulatory laws.  That's my top priority; not my sexual identity.  That's what keeps food on the plate and the mortgage paid.

In all business, you need to treat everyone with respect.  If you act like an ass towards your customers, they'll know, and you won't be in business very long.  So, as far as transgendered restrooms go, I get both sides of the argument.  Transgenders want to be treated with respect, while law enforcement has uses the gender identity of bathrooms in order to nail genuine perverts for Trespass, thereby kicking genuine perverts out of your business permanently.

Government needs to stay out of the businesses domain, and let the businesses behave according to the treat your customers respectfully rule, and the marketplace will take care of itself.  I'm sure I've had transgenders use a restroom that doesn't correspond with their gender at my business before: law of statistics, not verified knowledge.  There haven't been any problems.  People need to trust in common sense instead of hyping matters.  Common sense is a two way street.  We need to not look to push the envelope just to make virtue signalling points, and businesses need to treat us with respect because that's what businesses are suppose to do.  When this breaks down, the business will lose customers if they treat them disrespectfully, or gain customers if the virtue signalling garners a backlash.

I'm a Trump supporter.  Let me explain why.  I own businesses, travel quite a bit, and have a law degree.  In my travels in Western Europe, a place that is suppose to be the most liberal place for gay people on Earth, I have witnessed over the past several years real fear in the gay community because of migration, particularly Islamic migration, as the new migrants rather than assimilating into European culture have chosen to try to impose their values on Europe.  Anywhere you go in Europe, the younger the gay man, the more radically right they typically are.  At one gay bar in Paris before the French election, about 90% of the gay men there under the age of 30 were pro-Le Pen.

It's common sense.  As long as Islam is going to preach that throwing me from a building, stoning me to death, or beheading me because I'm gay is acceptable, then Islam is a greater threat to me than someone who just doesn't want to bake me a wedding cake.

The Democratic Party, rather than condition Islamic acceptance on Islam's acceptance for human rights, continues to tell us how great and wonderful Islam.  Without demanding real reform within Islam while, simultaneously, demanding that we accept large numbers of Islamic refugees, who, by the way would want me dead with many of those willing to act on that fantasy, then supporting the person who may not like me, but only prefers to shun me seems pretty reasonable.

The thing about monuments is they tell us about our history.  You don't know we're you're going if you don't know where you've been.  Even the most offensive monuments tell us both about the time they commemorate and the time they were built.  If times have changed, the answer is to tear down, but to build new monuments.

@Negrescence:

A lot of people here seem to reference raw numbers that Britain loses due to being with the EU but nothing on what they lose by exiting. Britain as it stands now is poised to lose at a minimum 12% of their GDP due to the loss of the banking industry there. 12% from one source alone! They're poised to lose a lot more than that when you add everything up. Financial sectors are grouped by 3 regions. Banks want the most access to Europe and not being a part of the Euro is a no-go. Britain is a service economy. Their service sector makes up 78% of their GDP and their service is to mainly Euro groups. They're losing these accesses and banks would rather watch Britain wither than lose money trying to maintain Britain as the financial capital of Europe when they could easily just move. When was the last time you purchased something that said made in Britain? Their production industry has been phased almost completely out. Economist and investors are worried and casting a dim light on Britain because their is no discernible light at the end of the tunnel.

At the end of the day on Brexit, it's going to be a wash.  The German banking system is what is holding the EU up, and it's in piss poor health.  Germany also runs a trade surplus with Britain.  A hard landing, with the shape their banks are in, while punishing Britain, would be catastrophic for Germany as well.  So, let's be realistic.  London may lose a little bit in banking, but not anywhere near the full 12% number, and rational heads will prevail, or else they will both sink.  At the end of the day, the Germans are going to have the largest say on the terms of the Brexit from the EU side.

I don't think this is a big deal.  First off, live in DC, and Rod Rosenstein is a standup guy.  Prosecuted corruption as DOJ lawyer against both Dems & GOP.  Has been consistently reappointed by both sides, and after Sessions recused himself from Russia, Russia will be in his lap, and Rosenstein is not someone you want to take on.

As for Comey, Hillary was out there blaming Comey for losing the election.  Trump was blaming Comey for spreading false Russia stuff.  Let's face it, neither side has confidence in Jim Comey, and Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting on a tarmac caused much of this because that meeting compromised the Department of Justice and put Comey into a difficult spot where he couldn't possibly be perceived by either side as objective, the FBI's job is to stay mum, pass the facts up the chain of command, and await their decision on whether or not to arrest.  Instead, he became investigator and prosecutor.  It also doesn't help that Comey allowed McCabe, who is now the interim to remain his #2, while McCabe's wife raised $700,000 while running for political office as a Democrat.

We can litigate the Clinton and Russia cases until the cows come home, but none of us are privy to the full set of facts that the FBI has, nor do we have the resources to followup leads like the FBI has.  What we can do is ascertain whether or not the Bureau is adhering to protocol, and Comey has not been doing that for quite sometime.  For better or worse, both sides have been complaining about that, and it's time to move on.  Trump is going to have to appoint someone who can get bipartisan support, as he cannot count on Sasse, McCain, and Graham as votes, which leaves him one vote shy for Senate Confirmation.

Overall, I think this is a good move.  Looking at public opinion polls before the firing, 17% of Dems had confidence in Comey & 26% of Republicans had confidence in Comey, and the fact that folks are polling this is not good news.  When the process works, no one knows who the FBI Director is.  How many would have even pondered polling on Mueller?  We're going to get answers in due course, but the answers have to come from someone that both sides have over 50% respect for.

It's not hard to be right when you visit three weeks before French 1st round election & leave one week before.  It's all anyone would talk about.  I was really amazed how people would talk so openly in the bars, and some cafes with liquor, but in any public place where they thought they weren't with people who would tolerate their opinion, everyone zipped up, like my momma used to say, absolutely nothing to say.

That sort of attitude left me with the fact there's two very separate camps, and when folks aren't talking to one another, that's a very bad sign that the next step is some sort of Balkanization that could actually lead to a civil war a la Bosnia.  Love to hear a Frenchman's opinion on that.  It was the one subject that was absolutely taboo on my visit.

First, I've traveled to France every 2-3 years for the past two decades.  The incident in question was on my second to last day in France, occurred a few blocks from the Eiffel Tower, a nice avenue of coffee shops, which, compared to past visits is now extremely run down, of course, relative comparison to previous visits of the same neighborhood.

Several hundred Arab looking men literally lined the streets, were checking their smart phones after dark, and anytime a woman approach, completely surrounded her, and she would be at their mercy.  It was truly a gauntlet.  I paid the cafe owner 100 euros to get me out safely, and he explained this is a new norm. BTW, he had to take me out a back way, and walk me four blocks to my hotel.  He further explained that the police are too intimidated to stand up, and that most of these men in question are migrants.  Considering he owned the place and had been there for years, I'll take his word at face value.  Plus, I always stop by his cafe once or twice when visiting.  Finally, I've traveled enough to know.

At the various gay bars and places within the gay community in France that one would normally visit, both older and younger gays were petrified of the Muslim influx because radical Imams who preach violence against gays are permitted to do so openly, and the authorities basically stand down to both the Imams and large groups that organize, which by the way is supposed to be criminalized in France.

The real divide in France is not French law targeting Muslim communities.  Most laws that are cited in the papers about French secularism targeting Islamic communities are never actually enforced, and law enforcement is afraid to confront Islamic areas of France, let alone enforce not wearing hijabs in public in Islamic areas.  It's like old 1800's laws in the US prohibiting purchasing milk on Sundays in rural American counties; they're on the books, but not enforced.

The real divide in the gay community over who to support is between younger and older.  Both are petrified of the migration wave, because the authorities are doing nothing to preserve what they believe French secularism brought them in terms of rights, and because most of the migrants that are coming are young, unaccompanied men, and according to the gays there very militant and radicalizing French Arabs.  The vast majority of the gay community does not want any more migrants, want Islam to agree to secularization or be outlawed.

The divide comes between the young and the old on politics.  They younger crowd tends to like Marine's positions on Islam, and there are many who believe Marine does not go far enough.  The older crowd views Islam and Marine both with suspicion, primarily because Marine's father has said some very harsh stuff about gays, as the apple cannot fall far from the tree.    Honestly, if Marine did not come with her father's baggage, from all the gays that I spoke to in France, should would be the landslide choice for French gays, and still is with the younger crowd.

The real problem in all of this from those I've spoken to while there is that Muslims were small in number in France, but never really integrated.  But two decades of mass migration, zero assimilation, has led to two separate groups, Muslim and French, and the recent migrations have brought a militant brand of Islam that seems, judging from their Imams, unwilling to assimilate, and a French public that has grown weary of the militant nature of Islam in a secular country.  This militancy is can probably be attributed to France's lack of integrating Islam into French society by getting some level of assimilation over the decades, but it's reached the point that there are two clear groups, both of which want something different and will not respect each other.

I do love Trump, for one big reason.  While we've been yelling at each other over social issues, our economy has tanked, never taken back off, health care is a mess, free trade never bore the fruit politicians promised, and politicians have used social issues to divide us.

Trump has come along, forced the the GOP religious cooks to accept social progress that has been made in gay rights, in exchange for a freeze on future social progress, while re-orienting the federal government towards the economic problems.

Whether he has the solutions is another story, and for that, time will tell, but forcing the GOP right wing to accept social progress in gay rights, primarily forcing them to give up the marriage fight is a big victory, and we do need to start focusing on economic issues.

As for whether or not the market is overbought, or in a state of a bubble, I don't think it is right now.  There is so much uncertainty in Europe, with Brexit, a potential Frexit, and Greek debt crisis (will flare up again), that many Europeans are dumping their money into the American markets to protect themselves, especially after the experience of Cyprus, where money was flat out seized from banks.  There's no sign this excess is going to leave the market anytime soon.

Now, if European politics begin to stabilize, that maybe a different story, but there's no time of that occurring soon.

I spent two weeks in France this year.  Shockingly, the gay community is split there on Marine.  It's almost a 50/50 split from those I talked to, and polling seems to confirm that Marine is scoring very will with the French gay community.  Many opposed to Marine still oppose her father's views of homosexuality, while those who support her are frightened to death of Islam in France, as many gays are being openly harassed and beaten in France by Muslims, at the behest of Imams who openly preach violence against gays.  Quite frankly, it's a weird situation, but many gays view that if Islam is allowed to continue to flourish in France that it'll lead to a gay Holocaust in France, while the other side believes Islam will moderate with time, and the Marines of French politics will lead them on a slow road to a gay Holocaust.

It's not an easy situation for gays in France right now, and yes, Muslim violence in France is a very serious issue.  I got to meet several gays who were beaten by Muslims, the French government had to install barriers around the Eiffel Tower to prevent terrorism, and on my last night there, just a few blocks from the Eiffel Tower, several hundred Muslims lined the street, and made women run a gauntlet to get home, groping, assaulting, and robbing women there.

I haven't spent enough time in France to understand the full political dynamic, but the French clearly need to have an open conversation regarding secularism versus Islam, and like most Western countries with Christianity, demand that Islam, like all other religions, respect basic human rights.  As an American, we're not perfect, but Christianity may not agree with gay rights, but they at least respect the human rights we've won.  You won't see a social media post resulting in several hundred lining the streets to assault women here in the states as I did in France.

It's a very dangerous situation there right now, and honestly because this conversation isn't happening, I would not be shocked if France were to enter a state of Civil War in a decade.  As for who to back in the French election, neither really appeals to me.  Macron is more of the same as Hollande, which is deny the problem, don't have the conversation, while Marine is just deport Islam.  Personally, I would lean slightly towards Marine, only because out of those two awful choices, Marine is the only choice where the conversation must happen.

Kid Titan
Dennis The Menace