HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » joshcryer » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

joshcryer

Profile Information

Name: Josh Cryer
Gender: Male
Hometown: Colorado
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 58,577

Journal Archives

Glenn Greenwald blocked me on Twitter, HAHA. Day. Made.

I use Twitter mainly to follow my friends and communicate about non-political stuff. Indeed, I made a tweet that basically pointed out my complete disillusion in politics recently, so I don't use twitter for political purposes for the most part. Snowden has been an exception. Snowden, a great American, who was used by clickbait checkbook journalists, and Russia (via Wikileaks), is in deep shit because of the Executor in Chief.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/457314934473633792

I can't find my tweet to Snowden shortly after Trump was elected but I warned him that it was a possibility and told him to get out of Russia as soon as possible. It's there, you can find it, that shit's public.

Glenn blocked me after this series of tweets:

https://twitter.com/joshcryer/status/830324630594342912

That tweet referred to Gleen Greenwald's delusional statement that the CIA and "Mike Morrell" (a Clinton "surrogate" by his own claims) "leaked" the idea that Trump wanted to be gifted Snowden to create "fake news." Mike Morrell's connection to the Clinton's is tenuous at best, being hired by a former aid of the Clinton for his intelligence agency.

Nevermind the fact that Trump's pick for CIA director, Mike Pompeo, wants Snowden's head. Literally, he wants to kill him. Like Trump himself. So Greenwald, this totally legit journalist, ignores that not only does the President want to kill Snowden, the likely leaker of this extradition possibility, Mike Pompeo, does as well. So it's not even controversial. Greenwald deflects to Clinton because the reality is that the guy who made him lots of money selling books is going to probably be extradited and likely executed, if something isn't done. And the bit of conscious that exists in his tiny brain was triggered just a tiny bit.

Another tweet I posted:

https://twitter.com/joshcryer/status/830324755907563520

Goes without saying. Greenwald, the king, literal king of clickbait and checkbook journalism, has the audacity to claim that it's happening with regards to a few reports about Snowden being considered for extradition (in other tweets to people talking to him he admits that he's not saying that this won't happen, it seems as if he is deluded about this prospect; it's just totally wrong to say it might happen, totally wrong, even though the President has and the CIA director the President has chosen, has said they want Snowdens head).

The last tweet that I posted, before I was blocked later in the morning by the king of clickbait, was this one:

https://twitter.com/joshcryer/status/830324865597009921

I was merely pointing out that Snowden serves no more use for Russia, except that they might be able to get some use out of him if they give him over to the guy who literally wants to execute him (ie, Donald Trump, our President, enabled by Wikileaks, Russian hacking, and misleading journalists like Greenwald). Snowden was glad to be vindicated that he wasn't a Russian spy or turned agent. But to say he wasn't a tool is a farce. Tools can and will be discarded. And Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and Russia are on the same page regarding Snowden's usefulness. Russia very much does not like his criticisms of their anti-free speech. And Trump wants him.

As I said in another post about Greenwald's usefulness with regards to Snowden's revelations, revelations I think were important, but were used by clickbait journalists to our detriment:

If we allowed the political process to go forward and didn't get media sensationalizing the story, we may well have had at least the Ending Secret Law Act out of committee, quietly passing through back room deals. Instead, the NSA and CIA and intelligence community overall was strengthened by Snowdens revelations, because the media made a fuss, and the people didn't give a good damn, since it was so sensationalized.

It became a story about how the NSA and CIA were duped by a lone libertarian and not a story about how the NSA and CIA shouldn't be doing what they were doing. They scrapped all the tools, and then got the FISA courts to rubber stamp things much easier by "separating" data gathering and placing the onus on corporations. We know this is factually true by how canaries have been falling one by one.

Corporations, in order to fall in line with the Patriot Act, simply give up any data asked for. Period.

Glenn Greenwald, fuck you, fuck your style of clickbait journalism. Fuck libertarians. Fuck your hatred for all that is actually good in order to further your own sick and twisted intersests.

And Snowden, if you can get the fuck out of there, don't fucking go to Ecuador. Ecuador works for Assange because he's a rapist that the US doesn't actually want. The US has extradited many a drug dealer there. If they want someone from Ecuador they'll get them. Manning (the only person who could) didn't indict Assange, so the US never wanted him. She's a hero. And don't go to Venezuela, it's about to have a conservative resurgence, they'll turn you over as soon as the likes of Maduro are ousted. Cuba is your best bet. Nicaragua, maybe. Or North Korea. But I wouldn't recommend the most latter.

Fuck you Greenwald. You are what is wrong with our media. Making shit up. Stirring shit. Making shit for click bait. Totally illogical and tenuous conspiratorial connections. Total bullshit.

I think Clinton is a scandal magnet.

Because she equivocates on everything. I think most of her support base (not on DU, in real life, the people actually voting for her), think she wants the job and is experienced for it, and they don't want to see the Republicans in the White House and think she can win. I also think they want to take a safe bet, and go with someone that they think will continue Obama's policies. Oh, and I do think they see through the equivocation and hope she'll do the "right thing."

While I don't see the electorate being pumped to vote for her, I cannot imagine any scenario where Trump wins. For the simple fact that Trump's core demographic doesn't ever vote Democrat anyway. Romney (2012, no Obama honeymoon with the youth vote) won a staggering 62% share of that demographic. And still lost. It's because minorities are growing and their voice is increasingly being heard.

What is unfortunate for me is that I went into this thinking Sanders could win, maybe, if he got out the youth vote. But he would have to do it by larger margins than Obama did in 2008. But the turnout rates have been mediocre at best, 10 points lower than 2008. Sanders has tied Clinton in many races, in many cases the youth vote broke for Sanders by 80%. That just tells you how important turnout is, and Sanders himself says it.

If the same youth don't vote or whatever I'm not worried because Trump has a massive millennial problem that he cannot overcome and it will likely get worse as the nastiness of the race heats up. I think if anything the way the race will go (very bigoted, very sexist, very racist), the youth vote will break for Clinton in a surprising way.

I didn't call you pro Trump.

It's more you're anti Clinton to the point where you say crap like Trump wins in Nov. That has no basis in reality. Good thing this'll be tested real soon, but I think at least 60-70% of DU will have lost all credibility, and it'll be interesting to see how they recover from that.

Yeah, nice excuse.

In reality this is just a veiled Trump pumping post.

President Obama saved a lot of lives. Mental health being added to background checks is astounding.

The vast majority of the last half dozen or so mass murders were done by people with serious mental health issues, even with mental health providers being intimately involved (Aurora comes to mine particularly for me, but I can cite others). I've been arguing for years that the background check system doesn't take into consideration the mental health of the buyer of the gun. It's simply been opaque. "Not a felon? No violent crime? Here's your gun."

If there is even a remote trigger when one does a background check that says "hey, this guy is on anti-depressants, and is seeing a therapist," then the gun dealer can deny the gun on their on conscionable reasoning tells the dealer to deny a gun to a mentally disturbed person without saying why. (edit because drunk post and everyone is focusing on that, original comments struck)

Sorry if this post is a few days late, just catching up on Obama's EO and his anouncement (watching his speech now).

Skip to 29:30:



Absolutely astounding.

The Autonomous Winter Is Coming

Winter is coming for car manufacturers. An Autonomous Winter, without end. If you’ve seen what Tesla is doing with Autopilot, and all they plan to do with it, you’ve already seen the future. Now it’s up to automakers to figure out what they want to be in this new world as quickly as possible.

Don’t think so? It’s because no one can remember anything that happened before the VW emissions scandal. While everyone is talking about the future of diesel and the consequences for VW, two big announcements were made around the Frankfurt Auto Show have been mostly forgotten: Google’s hiring of former head of Hyundai Motors America John Krafcik as CEO of their Self-Driving Car Project, and Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche’s claim that “we do not plan to become the Foxconn of Apple.”

No matter how cataclysmic the fallout of the VW scandal, trust me, these two items are bigger long-term. We’re talking about setting the scene for things that are decades into the future, not just years.

http://jalopnik.com/the-autonomous-winter-is-coming-1736684890

This is a long but good read and makes a convincing case as to why autonomous vehicles are going to change everything. It's written by the same guy who just road a Tesla, autonomously, from LA to NY: http://www.cnet.com/news/alex-roy-tesla-autopilot-record-57-hours-48-minutes/

Did you know you can support Sanders and BLM at the same time?

Because you can.

You can support Sanders' civil rights activism all his life and support his legislative efforts to those ends. You can support Sanders marching with MLK, doing sit ins, getting arrested for civil rights causes, and that's great. You can support and even champion Sanders economic message.

But you can also support the movement that points out that 7 times more unarmed black men are killed than any other peoples, you can support the movement that points out the fact that incarnation rates overwhelmingly target black men, you can support the movement that points out the fact that black people have higher incidents of poverty.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

I live in a visceral pain in my gut, politically, like I did when Dean lost the nomination, when I hear that Sanders is somehow against this sort of thing, and people arguing against BLM, for whatever reason. Granted, a lot of it is emotional. A lot of people are trying to split up BLM to different groups. The pro-Sanders or anti-Sanders groups.

As far as I see it Sanders was only targeted because, unlike every other Democratic candidate, he makes himself readily available, he's there, you can see him in public speeches or rallies relatively easy. This makes him, and I know its controversial to other Sanders supporters, a prime target. This doesn't bother me. It encourages me, because Sanders puts himself out there.

Clinton hides behind either $2,700 fundraisers or very specifically defined talks in high schools or middile schools or whatever, where no one, not a freaking single non-vetted soul is going to be within 20 feet of her. With the secret service not far behind. (And our pathetic media doesn't talk about this nature of her public appearances one iota.)

I wholeheartedly disagree with the actions of Seatle BLM members, and am on record saying their actions disgusted me, but that is over with, it's done. What happened happened, and what followed followed. Sanders had tens of thousands show up to the next events (online and in person). Sanders isn't going away. BLM didn't crash him nor was its intent. It wanted to make the news, that's all. That's really all militant action can do.

I'm left in complete disarray, because I'm not in the bubble, I know Sanders' campaign is doing extremely well. I believe Sanders has a better shot than any (I won't lie or be disillusioned and say he's a shoe in but I will repudiate anyone who says he can't win).

I'm telling you now, from someone who supports Sanders and BLM at the same time, it sucks to be of this mindset. Would it be that I could bash BLM because of some militant actions by a few (which were not denounced by BLM leaders). I can't.

BLM matters just like Occupy. And BLM isn't solely against Sanders. BLM is against not being heard by the establishment which they overwhelmingly support in elections. That's it. Accept that BLM wants its voice heard by the party which it feels has left them behind despite their votes, and you'll truly feel what they are about.

Experiment: Hide DU names CSS script:

I've been trying an experiment recently whereby I hide almost all identifying information about DU posters.

I downloaded the Stylish plugin for Firefox (there's also one for Chrome), and added the following code:

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

@-moz-document domain("http://democraticunderground.com") {

}

table.default-table .author {
display: none;
}

table.reply-table td.author {
display: none;
}

p.post-author2 a.author2 {
display: none;
}

p.post-replyto {
display: none;
}

.post-sig {
display: none;
}

p.post-author {
margin: 0px;
display: none;
}

p.post-avatar {
display: none;
}

div.content-container {
padding: 17px 0px;
margin: 0px 13px 0px 20px;
min-height: 34px;
}


table.input-form-table tr:nth-child(1) {
display: none;
}

h2.usersection {
display: none;
}

a.mp-author {
display: none;
}



This code will remove all usernames of all posters except on their profile pages (because that uses a common CSS code that the rest of the site uses and I couldn't figure out how to fix it). This includes in PMs, in My Posts, in the main forum author pages, everywhere I can find on the site. This code will also remove all signatures and avatar pictures (and make a bit more space for the forum display so it's not ugly when removing the avatars).

I literally don't know who is replying to me or who I am replying to without going to the effort of figuring out who it is. So far I have found myself doing it twice when I felt attacked (just by turning off the style or by going to the profile page).

Try it out, it can be quite refreshing. And telling about some others. And before anyone asks, yeah, it's actually pretty hard to differentiate posters by writing style, only a few ones stand out, so I really don't know who I'm responding to.

Ted Cruz will be the Republican nominee.

He will slaughter any Republican candidate because of his "great debate skills." This will not, of course, win him the Presidency, but he will win the nomination because no one comes close to his level of rhetorical flourish.

Bookmark this. The dude was #1 in the country as far as a debater. The media has nothing else but "debates" to measure a candidacy.

And, importantly, Ted Cruz would allow the last dying breath of the far right to get their ideology heard. Religious indoctrination is literally his platform. They will vote for him in droves. He will win the nomination with ease.

Any contenders?

Womens rights, immigration rights, education, and weed.

In that order.

Bank on it.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »