The Goat Pen

You

I am not a fan of Bush, but the guy had a great sense of humor

[youtube]t4N93jLVPIA[/youtube]

If you find yourself just not as happy with your Facebook as you used to be, you’re not alone. New research from Bridge Ratings shows that Facebook users are becoming more and more dissatisfied with the service, and it might be because people are tired of being bombarded with political posts from their friends and the pages they follow.

Counting only Facebook users who have been on the social network for at least a year, people’s overall satisfaction with the service is on the decline. From 2012 to 2017, the number of people across multiple demographics who say they’re not using the Facebook platform as much as they used to has increased.

The largest decline was in the 35 to 44 year old demographic: people who were either in college or just out of college when Facebook was first introduces. In 2012, just 25% of them said they were not using Facebook as much as they used to. But that number rose to over 40% in 2017. Of course, you can attribute some of that to people this age simply being more busy with careers and kids. But the decline in use was in other age brackets too.

Facebook decline among millennials was at a much slower rate, but it was still an increase in people who use the service less. 31% of millennials in 2012 responded they use Facebook less often than before, compared to 35% who said the same thing in 2017.

While a number of factors are contributing to the “Facebook fatigue” many are feeling, one of the key reasons cited in the report is that posts on the social network are frequently taking on a “toxic tone” as friends post about the election and the current political climate.

“Prior to the 2016 U.S. election political commentary as a reason to unfriend someone, was hardly on our research radar. However, during the 2016 election season, political comments or negative postings increased and many users of the service began to feel anxious about logging on…Ant it’s not getting any better [now that the election is over]” the report states.

seems pretty tough for anyone to admit they've met with a Russian

----------------

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that she's never met with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

"Not with this Russian ambassador, no," Pelosi told POLITICO's Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer during a Playbook interview, when asked whether she had ever met with the Russian envoy.

But a file photo from Pelosi's 2010 meeting with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev shows Kislyak at the table across from Pelosi — then House speaker — and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Medvedev had been in the country for a meeting with President Barack Obama a day earlier and stopped in on Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders as well.

Asked to square Pelosi's comments with the photo of the meeting, a spokesman said Pelosi simply meant she never had a solo meeting with Kislyak.

And a pic of Schumer and Putin eating donuts!!!! (Thank you, Mr. President)

So why do Flynn and Sessions get buggered and the dems get away Scot free? It makes no sense...the GOP controls the WH and Congress. There is NO way this should be happening.

Thoughts?

Jungle Rat wrote:You

I was being facetious. Now who is the fucking idiot?

You

bluetick wrote:And a pic of Schumer and Putin eating donuts!!!! (Thank you, Mr. President)

So why do Flynn and Sessions get buggered and the dems get away Scot free? It makes no sense...the GOP controls the WH and Congress. There is NO way this should be happening.

Thoughts?

so you don't have an issue with two leading democrats calling for the resignation of Jeff Sessions both declaring they never met with a Russian Diplomat and both getting caught lying about it?

its possible they legitimately forgot OR said they didn't meet with them for a specific topic related to national security, but its not possible for Jeff Sessions to do so... is that your position?

eCat wrote:

bluetick wrote:And a pic of Schumer and Putin eating donuts!!!! (Thank you, Mr. President)

So why do Flynn and Sessions get buggered and the dems get away Scot free? It makes no sense...the GOP controls the WH and Congress. There is NO way this should be happening.

Thoughts?

so you don't have an issue with two leading democrats calling for the resignation of Jeff Sessions both declaring they never met with a Russian Diplomat and both getting caught lying about it?

its possible they legitimately forgot OR said they didn't meet with them for a specific topic related to national security, but its not possible for Jeff Sessions to do so... is that your position?

Let me reset the scene for you. A U.S. presidential election - marred by intelligence reports of Russian meddling. yada yada Later a congressional hearing, with these words spoken under oath "I had no contacts with any Russians." Except that statement wasn't factual.

How about the country deal with that timely issue first, and if you want to come back later and investigate the 2003 Krispy Kremes then I'm there for ya.

bluetick wrote:

eCat wrote:

bluetick wrote:And a pic of Schumer and Putin eating donuts!!!! (Thank you, Mr. President)

So why do Flynn and Sessions get buggered and the dems get away Scot free? It makes no sense...the GOP controls the WH and Congress. There is NO way this should be happening.

Thoughts?

so you don't have an issue with two leading democrats calling for the resignation of Jeff Sessions both declaring they never met with a Russian Diplomat and both getting caught lying about it?

its possible they legitimately forgot OR said they didn't meet with them for a specific topic related to national security, but its not possible for Jeff Sessions to do so... is that your position?

Let me reset the scene for you. A U.S. presidential election - marred by intelligence reports of Russian meddling. yada yada Later a congressional hearing, with these words spoken under oath "I had no contacts with any Russians." Except that statement wasn't factual.

How about the country deal with that timely issue first, and if you want to come back later and investigate the 2003 Krispy Kremes then I'm there for ya.

so you're not capable of answering the question honestly and directly.

I AM disappointed to learn that Obama wiretapped the guy who is now the rightful sacred president.

TERRIBLE! SAD!

eCat wrote:

Bklyn wrote:So Sessions met with the Russians during the campaign. It was not offered during his Senate confirmation meetings.

It's obvious the leaks are being done after it becomes painfully clear the Executive branch will not be truthful with items. They leak weeks later...giving ample time for truth to come out. When the Executive branch openly denies, they leak the truth.

be careful what you wish for

At some point Trump will get control of these groups and then he's going to start retaliating.


I heard someone on CNN say that he has decided to review the email server issue on Hillary.

At this point I can only assume its punitive on his part. It won't be the last move he makes in that regard.

I doubt he has any desire to go back on Obama, but if Obama's holdovers are sabotaging Trump every chance they get, he will.

now seems like a good time to repost this.....

I'm glad I live on the East coast when we start our war with Mexico.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erate.html

So my suggestion to invade Mexico is gaining traction?

A war with Mexico will last 45 minutes.

If Trump is going to conduct a military operation in order to deflect from his myriad list of troubles (with more troubles to surely follow), then he needs to pick on somebody that won't get KO'd in the first round. Iran or North Korea would appear to fit the bill nicely.

Mexico could be Trump's Poland

If you look at the timeline of the September meetings that Sessions had with the Russians and the announcements of sanctions (and Russian responses), then you have to question why Sessions said he never met with the Russians. The timeline is curious.

Do I think there was collusion with the Russians to the point where Sessions directed any nefarious actions against the Democrats? Doubtful. Do I think the meeting/calls Sessions had in the Fall gave Russia comfort that things would be okay if Trump made it into office? Yes.

- Sept 1 - Obama imposes sanctions on Russia (Ukraine actions). Russia does no retaliation
- Sept 4 - 5 - Obama and Putin meet at G20 and briefly discuss sanctions "in passing"
- Sept 7 -DNI Clapper states for the first time publicly that Russia was behind hacks
- Sept 8 - Sessions meets Ambassador in his Senate office ("there's just not strong recollection of what was said" in the meeting)
- Sept 13 - Sessions speaks to Ambassador via phone
- Sept 14 - New batch of DNC emails released

- Jan 17 - Confirmation hearings...Sen Leahy asks Sessions straight away if he has been in contact with the Russian government about the election? Sessions says "no." Sen Franken asks his question and Session offers up he never met with any members of the Russian government
- Mar 2 - Sessions denies having any discussions about sanctions when he spoke with the Ambassador and said he was unaware of the hacking...althouth THE DAY BEFORE the Sessions/Ambassador meeting, DNI Clapper stated publicly (with much fanfare) that Russia hacked us

Also, during that same day that Sessions met with the Ambassador (Sept 8) Trump did a bunch of press (including Today) stating that he did not believe Russia hacked us. Pence, that same day said that Putin is a stronger leader than Obama.

Everything is circumstantial, but it is very shady. I want to give benefit of the doubt on the memory of people who spend large chunks of their time meeting government flunky after government flunky. The timeline is disturbing and the scenario of denial, then subsequent corrections makes me dubious. Between Flynn, Sessions, Tillerson (who I do believe is a very principled and honest man...but he is in a briar patch) and Wilbur Ross with all these Russian ties, I do think we need to stop being partisan and just look at the facts. It's not a good sign...and I do truly hope it's not as bad as it is currently looking.

Why do they keep lying about meeting with the Russians? Why not just have said, "Hell, yeah, we met with the Russian ambassador because we needed to go over some shit."

They keep falling over themselves.

Seems as though it's all about siding with Trump and going down with him or jumping ship to Pence/Bannon/GOP and finding a spot on the lifeboat. I think what is going on is a silent GOP coup on Trump and that's why there are so many leaks. Sessions is too much of a Trump ally to have a role in the reconfigured regime but I guarantee you that Bannon is in the middle of it. He's not loyal to Trump. He picked Trump as a means to power.

You maybe onto something with the leaks being more likely "GOP" loyalists (esp. as opposed to Obama staff). Having Obama as a good foil to a dim, yet paranoid, POTUS gives the leakers good cover for a while. That coup may be real.

Also, EFZ, on the lying at every Russian question. That's the thing that is so unsettling. I always expected there would be people who put party over principle. That happens everywhere...in all political categories. The volume of people disregarding or minimizing this Russian thing is larger than I expected...particularly because the GOP are supposed to be "God and Country" folk...and Russia typifies neither.

Trump did call them all idiots back in '98. So, I don't know why I don't give him more credit.