The Goat Pen

Cletus wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:That's one of the reasons I never had a FB account, and never missed it.

Facebook doesn't work well if you have no friends.

I can totally understand that you have no friends

Isn’t it obvious?

It wasn't the enabling of Facebook that won it for Trump. It was another medium that was willing to promote him..

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/opin ... gtype=sect

Nothing that Cambridge Analytica did to help the Trump campaign target swing voters (and there’s reason to think it didn’t do as much as it claimed) had anything remotely like the impact of this #alwaysTrump tsunami, which probably added up to more than $2 billion in effective advertising for his campaign during the primary season, a flood that drowned all of his rivals’ pathetic tens of millions.

I was going to post this morning that Cambridge Analytica wasn't even working with Trump after the primaries and their total ad revenue was around $5m, a drop in the bucket.

And if you believe the people looking into the Russians , they spent significantly less than that.

Do you think Trump's lawyers are all quitting because he's so innocent that the job isn't challenging enough for these guys?

I think they are quitting for the same reason he has high staff turnover. He is a notoriously difficult man to work with and doesn't take advice from people who believe they are qualified to give it to him.

watching that dirty money episode on Trump, I think they did a pretty good job of laying out the Trump/Russian connection.

I don't think there is any Russian collusion in terms of the election. Russian quid pro quo? Absolutely in regards to a Trump Tower and other projects being built in Russia.

But you also learn that Trump is primarily generating income globally from licensing his name to building projects because the Trump name is a status symbol in foreign countries. He has little to do with the construction. He flies in to cut the ribbon why they are cutting the check. And in this case the venture in Russia fell thru.

The bigger issue is Trump is probably walking a fine line with his association with the Russian mafia by entering into agreements to use his name for licensing. A former Russian aristocrat who lives in both worlds at one time had an office on the same floor as Trump in the Trump Tower.

Mueller is probably in Moscow right now, investigating reports that Trump colluded with Putin to rig the Russian election in Putin’s favor. It could take months - even years - to get to the bottom of this conspiracy.

Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It's Not A Growing Epidemic

people that think action should be taken aren't going to listen to that

True, even though it comes from NPR.

One of the article's points, that multiple 24/7 cable news shows and the internet sites skew our visceral feel for how common these things are. It's the age we live in and I and others have made the same point before. It's amazing how connected we are and how much repetition we are subjected to. For example, on my ipad today alone, I have read the WSJ, the NYT, WP, The New Yorker, and browsed NPR, this forum, Eater, Mensa Research Journal, and HotMILFSinHeat.xxx. 20 years ago, I would have read the local paper and the WSJ. Maybe some other hard copy of something but no where near what I go through now.

and porn would have been on VHS

kids today don't even know what the phrase "a whole box of porn" even means

I haven't been to HotMilfsinHeat. Lately I've been jerkin it to women that walk up and down the stairs without complaining about their arthritis.

Hahaha.

I also get excited at women who are still awake at 8pm

AlabamAlum wrote:True, even though it comes from NPR.

One of the article's points, that multiple 24/7 cable news shows and the internet sites skew our visceral feel for how common these things are. It's the age we live in and I and others have made the same point before. It's amazing how connected we are and how much repetition we are subjected to. For example, on my ipad today alone, I have read the WSJ, the NYT, WP, The New Yorker, and browsed NPR, this forum, Eater, Mensa Research Journal, and HotMILFSinHeat.xxx. 20 years ago, I would have read the local paper and the WSJ. Maybe some other hard copy of something but no where near what I go through now.

You would think the increase in media sources would mean consumers would have a less skewed view of things, but of course, everyone doesn't choose the variety that you list. Most just stick with source that confirm their biases. Particularly when it comes to porn sites...

I am not even talking about slant or bias. Just repetition. In other words, you turn on cable and go to HLN and they talk about a shooting. Then as you're channel surfing on CNN, MSN, BBC, and Fox you hear about the same event. Then you get on-line and browse all the eNews where it gets re-hashed. You settle down for dinner and watch the local news and the first thing out of their mouth is, "The shooting today that killed three people is our top story..." You hear the same story again and again on the net and cable the rest of the night. If you take a local paper, that same shooting is covered there when you get the paper the next morning. It just wasn't that way before. 30 minutes local and 30 minutes national and then a paper or two.

I think it makes us think there are more murders and evil of all sorts in America today than what we believed was the case a couple of decades ago - even though the statistics on it doesn't support that feeling.

it would appear that Bolton is in. It will be a minor miracle if we don't go to war with Iran now

Bolton in as NSA? I'm going back to building my bomb shelter. That guy is nuts.

"I think it makes us think there are more murders and evil of all sorts in America today than what we believed was the case a couple of decades ago - even though the statistics on it doesn't support that feeling."

Kinda like the opioid epidemic...

Opioids kill more people than breast cancer now.


An estimated 20.8 million people in our country are living with a substance use disorder. This is similar to the number of people who have diabetes, and 1.5 times the number of people who have all cancers combined. This number does not include the millions of people who are misusing substances but may not yet have a full-fledged disorder. We don't invest nearly the same amount of attention or resources in addressing substance use disorders that we do in addressing diabetes or cancer, despite the fact that a similar number of people are impacted.

For far too long people have thought about substance abuse disorders as a disease of choice, a character flaw or a moral failing. We underestimated how exposure to addictive substances can lead to full blown addiction.

Now we understand that these disorders actually change the circuitry in your brain. They affect your ability to make decisions, and change your reward system and your stress response. That tells us that addiction is a chronic disease of the brain, and we need to treat it with the same urgency and compassion that we do with any other illness.