Datasets:

k3w15hu8h

/

MissBert-Data

like 0

Donald Trump’s shocking presidential win last night has left most of the world in mortified awe, but one leader seems especially pleased by the upset, perhaps because he had something to do with it. Just hours after Trump took the stage to deliver his acceptance speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated the president-elect on his win. It was only three weeks ago, at the third presidential debate that Hillary Clinton said Trump would be Putin’s “puppet” and it looks like Putin is eager to take on the master’s role. Speaking from the Kremlin, Putin specifically praised Trump on his vow to restore relations with Russia: “We understand the way to that will be difficult, taking into account the current state of degradation of relations between the US and Russia. As I have repeatedly said, that is not our fault that Russia-US relations are in that state. Russia is ready and wants to restore the fully-fledged relations with the US. I repeat we understand this will be difficult, but we are ready to play our part in it.” And what part will Trump play? Ask Sergei Markov. The pro-Kremlin political analyst, who was equally thrilled by the election outcome, is confident Trump will have America do a 180 on the Syrian debacle and join Russia in its backing of Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. There is every reason to believe the analyst, too. At the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Hillary Clinton joked that Trump was ‘ healthy as a horse – you know the one Vladimir Putin rides on’. It looks like she might be right. Trump has always seemed a bit cozy with the Russian president , but now he may actually owe him a debt of gratitude for the Kremlin’s part in his win. In relation to Russian interference in the election, Markov said, “Maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.” Up until now the Kremlin has denied any involvement; Putin calling The Obama administration’s accusations they hacked Democratic Party emails, then leaking them to WikiLeaks, as “nonsense” claims. Markov did admit it might not be all smooth riding, adding, “Putin is a macho, Trump is also a macho. Maybe it could be a problem.” Alexei Venediktov, the editor-in-chief of Russia’s liberal Echo of Moscow radio, agrees: “Putin doesn’t like unpredictability and Trump is the definition of unpredictability.” I guess we will just have to see who will be riding whom. Featured image via CNN screengrab Share this Article!

@Karey1975 @tariqnasheed so give an example then. If you can't then I'm just going to assume you're trolling

Viral Image of PM Modi’s Address With Lockdown Message Is Fake

During a debate on French television show Niveau Z ro (Zero Level), right-wing nationalist Daniel Conversano spewed so much hate that essayist Alain Soral couldn t hold back anymore. They re not French, Conversano said about Arab immigrants. He thinks Muslims should be killed and wiped out of the country by any means necessary, even if it means committing war crimes.Conversano is also anti-Semitic, which means he wants to treat Jews like the Nazis treated them.Soral took issue with Conversano s open hostility toward Muslims, saying, They re not white, you mean, he replied. By what right do you dare to say that? And then things escalated.CONVERSANO: Because it s the truth and everyone realizes it. SORAL: Who is everyone, you little sh*t? Conversano responded by defining everyone as the 30 percent of people who support the National Front Party in the polls because they have had it up to their a**holes in Arabs. At this point, Soral couldn t stand listening to Conversano s racist bullshit anymore and proceeded to whoop his ass.Here s the video via YouTube. The fight is at the 9:30 mark:Over 70 years ago, Americans joined nations around the world to fight and defeat regimes that preached racial purity and hate against certain ethnic groups. White nationalists in Germany took control of the nation from within via elections and the people paid the price for it. Millions of people around the globe paid the price for it with their very lives. Democracy and humanity were directly threatened with annihilation because people like Daniel Conversano in France and Donald Trump here in America are allowed to peddle their hatred and bigotry as mainstream ideas. They play on people s fears and emotions to turn them against people. And when enough people hand them power, we end up with brutal dictatorships that commit human rights violations and even genocide.A right-wing movement is currently rising to power across Europe like a plague and even America is going to be controlled by white nationalists for the next four years. For some reason, millions of people in Europe and America have forgotten about what white nationalists have done in the not-so-distant past. Jews were the ones being persecuted during World War II. Muslims are the ones being persecuted now. And fascism is once again poised to destroy democracy. The only question is who is going to stand up and fight against it if the governments and military forces of the free world are dominated by evil?While we may not necessarily agree with what Soral did, at least he had the courage to fight a white nationalist in defense of human rights. After all, white nationalists have been committing hate crimes and killing people for decades.Featured image via screenshot

Donald Trump’s emergence as the last man standing in the Republican presidential race has prompted his critics inside the party to intensify their search for a candidate they could back as a serious third-party alternative. Political operatives are courting donors, calling potential candidates and developing legal contingency plans for overcoming onerous ballot qualification laws. “This is as much as anything a battle for the future of American party politics,” said Republican strategist Joel Searby, who is working with conservative writer Bill Kristol, among others, on an effort to identify a third-party candidate to run in the Nov. 8 presidential election. A separate group, Conservatives Against Trump, which includes blogger Erick Erickson, has been holding calls and meetings to discuss third-party candidates as well as other options to stop the New York billionaire from winning the White House. The hurdles to a third-party candidacy are immense. No independent candidate has ever won a presidential election, although some have played spoilers. But the efforts by the Republican groups underscore the unusual divisiveness of Trump’s candidacy within Republican ranks ahead of a likely general election fight with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Trump’s opposition to free trade is at odds with the views of many Republicans, especially in the party’s business wing. Many of Trump’s critics also find his rhetoric offensive, including his call to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the country and his comment describing Mexican immigrants to the United States as rapists and drug dealers. Some Republicans say they worry that any third-party candidate would only siphon votes away from Trump and help Clinton win the election. Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential run has been blamed by some Democrats for the razor-thin defeat of Democratic nominee Al Gore in the 2000 election. Ross Perot’s independent candidacy in 1992 was seen by some Republicans as contributing to President George H.W. Bush’s loss to Democrat Bill Clinton. One outcome, though rare, may be that no candidate crosses the necessary threshold of 270 votes in the U.S. Electoral College. In that case, the vote for the next president would pass to the U.S. House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans. Deborah DeMoss Fonseca, who recruited donors for former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush and is working with Conservatives Against Trump, said her group was trying to find a candidate who would be high-profile enough to compete with Trump and Clinton. But finding a candidate of that caliber who would be willing to run is no easy feat. Searby’s group has reached out to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and James Mattis, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general, among others, but both declined after discussions. Republican U.S. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska has emerged as a favorite of the Republicans seeking a third-party candidate. Kristol has had warm words for him. Sasse, a freshman lawmaker and former Bush administration official, is a strong critic of Trump and has called for an alternative candidate to him. But he says that person should be someone other than him. On Wednesday, the morning after Trump emerged as the presumptive presidential nominee, phones at the office of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson were ringing off the hook with calls from small-government Republicans who feel they cannot get behind Trump. But as a Libertarian, Johnson holds views on some issues, such as the legalization of marijuana, that are antithetical to the views of some Republicans. In March, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent, said he had considered jumping into the race as a third-party candidate but opted against it, saying he feared it would only serve to help get Trump elected. One of the biggest hurdles to a third-party run is simply getting on the ballot in enough states to mount a viable campaign. Texas requires more than 79,000 signatures from voters who did not participate in either primary. Its deadline is Monday. Among other states, North Carolina’s deadline is the end of May, and Illinois and Florida in mid-July. “A third-party candidate is a pipe dream,” said Republican strategist Tony Fratto, who worked in Bush’s administration and strongly opposes Trump. “What’s going to happen is Hillary Clinton is going to win big. It won’t be close.”

@MelissaTweets @ericdondero @iyad_elbaghdadi But if this is convenient for you, yes you can always blame the "other" for anything bad

No matter how the poll questions are asked, a clear majority of Americans support President Donald Trump’s January reform of the nation’s refugee policies, says a large new survey of 22, 000 people. [“Overall, 54 percent of registered voters approved of the [Jan. 25 refugee] executive order and 40 percent disapproved … Six percent did not have an opinion either way,” according to the February survey by Morning Consult. The survey asked slightly different questions to subgroups within the huge survey. But public opinion barely budged when different terms were used, Morning Consult said, There was no difference in results when respondents saw the word banning (53 approve, 40 disapprove) versus blocking (54 approve, 40 disapprove). Nor was there a difference in responses when with no time limit (54 approve, 40 disapprove) the word ‘temporary’ (53 approve, 41 disapprove) or the phrase “for 90 days” (54 approve, 40 disapprove) is used. judges in California have blocked parts of Trump’s order, which temporarily barred inflow of refugees from seven Muslim countries, halved the annual inflow of refugees to 55, 000 and declared formal opposition to the acceptance of immigrants who have “hostile attitudes. ” Trump is expected to sign a new order in the next few days to evade the judicial ban. Islamic groups and progressives oppose what they describe as Trump’s “Muslim ban” or his “travel ban,” but Trump is expected to sign a new order in the next few days to evade the judicial ban. The policy is strongly supported by Trump’s base, the survey showed. Approval was 20 percentage points higher among seniors (58 percent) than among adults under 30 years old (39 percent). Republicans (85 percent) were three times as likely to approve as Democrats (29 percent) and men (59 percent) were 10 percentage points more likely to approve than women (49 percent). The largest differences in responses came when the pollsters changed how the migrants were described: Support for the ban is 4 percentage points higher, 55 percent approve vs. 51 percent approve, when the population is described as “people” rather than “people, including U. S. lawful permanent residents and visa holders originally. The survey showed overall strong approval of 34 percent and strong opposition of 30 percent. Somewhat approval was 19 percent and somewhat disapproval was 11 percent, with 6 percent declining to pick a side. Multiple other polls show broad and stable public support for the president’s policy, despite lopsided opposition among Democrats, progressives and media outlets.

Another Primary Night's Results Confound (At Least Some) Expectations The latest day of primary voting was bad news for one leading candidate, good news for another and a setback for popular campaign narratives in both parties. You may have heard that Hillary Clinton was about to extend her Super Tuesday dominance to Mississippi and Michigan, putting the campaign of Bernie Sanders on the ropes once and for all. The Clinton story seemed all the more plausible given her feisty show in her seventh debate with Sanders and the struggle he seemed to have in more populous states. And you may also have heard the reports of Donald Trump's momentum finally stalling out. Over the weekend, in votes in Kentucky and Louisiana, late-deciders had broken against him. Trump still won those states, of course, but only because so many people voted early for him. This Trump scenario made sense given the millions of dollars in attack ads paid for by rivals and by independent superPACs opposed to his nomination. But not so fast. As it turned out, it was the Clinton juggernaut that lost a wheel in Michigan — while Trump's model stayed very much on track. He lost late-deciders again, but it mattered even less than it had in the earlier tests. Sanders, for his part, once again defied expectations. Michigan responded to his assault on trade deals, while not entirely buying Clinton's late attacks on his voting record on the auto industry bailout. Clinton may also have been expecting higher turnout among African-Americans, who backed her with 65 percent of their vote but did not supply enough votes to overcome Sanders' advantage outside of metropolitan Detroit. Clinton also failed to win the county that is home to Flint, the city with lead-poisoned water that she had made the focus of her campaign. Once again, Sanders reprised his astounding dominance of the youth vote, taking 87 percent of the votes of those under 30. He also won an overwhelming number of counties, large and small, throughout the state. Yet another storyline that crashed and burned Tuesday concerned a candidate running well out of the money so far this season. This was the myth known as "the emergence of John Kasich," the Ohio governor many hoped might become the establishment alternative to Trump. Kasich went all-in for Michigan in hopes of generating momentum ahead of his do-or-die primary in his home state on March 15. But Kasich finished third, a hair or two behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. He may still win Ohio next week, but he will not be a factor anywhere else on a day when three other top-10 states will vote (Florida, Illinois and North Carolina). For his part, Cruz once again showed himself the master of the small state event (he won in Idaho) and the second-place finish (Michigan, Mississippi, Hawaii). Despite his maddening failure to defeat Trump in Southern states with big populations of evangelical white Protestants, Cruz has hung tough and racked up delegates. He is now just 99 delegates behind Trump. If he could win a few of the winner-take-all states, he could catch him, although the prospects of that appear increasingly remote. And if there is any GOP candidate with a chance of preventing Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates for a first-ballot nomination, it is now Cruz. It might help Cruz stop Trump if his fellow freshman senator, Marco Rubio, dropped out rather than contest his home state of Florida next week. But Rubio has vowed to remain for that test, even though he remains behind Trump in Florida polling and must battle Cruz and Kasich for votes there. Truth be told, Tuesday was a night of total frustration for Rubio, demonstrating how utterly his campaign strategy has failed. He not only finished third or worse in Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho and Hawaii — he won exactly zero delegates for the night. His delegate count is now further behind Cruz than Cruz is behind Trump. Rubio was the young and charismatic candidate many Republicans had hoped would step up as the anti-Trump. But Rubio's recent attempts to do so with personal putdowns and constant attacks may have backfired, judging by his performance since he adopted Trump's slashing speaking style. Setting aside a small-turnout event in Minnesota and a primary in Puerto Rico, Rubio has now staggered winless through two-dozen primaries and caucuses. In the cold light of the day-after, it is possible the results from Tuesday will look different. Had Clinton eked out another 20,000 votes or so in Michigan, the headline might have been about her crossing the halfway point in pursuit of the 2,383 delegates needed to nominate on the first ballot at the July convention in Philadelphia. She has 1,221 now. Sanders has 571. The most frustrating element of the battle for Sanders is that even his best night since New Hampshire did not avail him in the delegate tally. Clinton's 66-point dominance in Mississippi won her nearly all that state's cache of 36 delegates, while Sanders' razor-thin margin in Michigan meant the two candidates split that state's 130 delegates almost evenly. All of that makes it difficult for Sanders to overcome Clinton's delegate lead, even if he continues to best her in the voting booths from here through June. Sanders strategist Tad Devine is fond of saying the race is a marathon, not a sprint, but winning a race of any duration still requires you to finish first. Sanders needs to make a habit of doing just that, and by wider margins than his breakthrough in Michigan gave him. Still, however steep the climb may appear, this Tuesday made it harder than ever to count the Vermonter out.

I am a student of history so I tend to actually be familiar with many of these episodes that have been mentioned. I am the first one to acknowledge that America s application to concern around human rights has not always been consistent. And, I m certainly mindful that there are dark chapters in our own history in which we have not always observed the principles and ideals upon which the country was founded. Just a few weeks ago I was in Selma, Alabama celebrating the 50th anniversary of a march across a bridge that resulted in horrific violence and the reason I was there and the reason it was a celebration is because it was a triumph of human spirit in which ordinary people without resort to violence were able to overcome systematic segregation. There voices were heard and our country changed. America never makes a claim about being perfect, we do make a claim about being open to change.

Scott Disick Freaks Out at Kourtney Kardashian Over Younes Bendjima!

Written by Dennis J. Kucinich Wednesday October 26, 2016 Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves “think tanks,” and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city’s so called bipartisan foreign policy elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened Pandora’s Box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military contractors. DC’s think “tanks” should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles and not as gathering places for refugees from academia. According to the front page of this past Friday’s Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of “liberal” hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq and Libya experience. The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall of Libya, the black flag of Al Queda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Qaddafi’s murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, “We came, we saw, he died.” President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy establishment, which is spoiling for more war. The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America’s current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on “mission accomplished.” CAP, according to a report in The Nation , has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria. The Brookings Institute has taken tens of millions from foreign governments , notably Qatar, a key player in the military campaign to oust Assad. Retired four-star Marine general John Allen is now a Brookings senior fellow . Charles Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute , which has received funding from Saudi Arabia , the major financial force providing billions in arms to upend Assad and install a Sunni caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria. Foreign-government money is driving our foreign policy. As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The Brookings Institute, in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom, where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style. And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously told Colin Powell , “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it,” predictably says of this current moment , “We do think there needs to be more American action.” A former Bush administration top adviser is also calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria. The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering, propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation with Russia in Syria. The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d’être for stone-cold warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world domination. It’s infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a fictional show that contemplated WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home). The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia’s targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder that by the summer of 2016 a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM’s launching a nuclear strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report. As this year’s presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly more dangerous place. The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I’m fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts, at the cost of other people’s lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country. Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by a list of the think tank’s sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report’s authors. It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes. It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America, to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the White House, must face visible opposition. Reprinted with author's permission from The Nation . Related

To say people aren t happy is an understatement. People are extremely angry about state Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon shelving the single-payer healthcare bill in California.Huffington Post reports that Rendon has received death threats since making this decision.It is a shame that the bill got shelved as we all wanted to see how California would fare, but nobody should be threatening another life over it. We, as people, are meant to be better than that. Especially those of us with progressive outlooks.Rendon opted to pull the bill last week despite his support for a single-payer system. He called the plan woefully incomplete. He urged the state Senate to fill the holes and send the Assembly a workable bill next year. Even senators who voted for SB 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, he said in a statement on Friday. These include its failure to address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make the bill a genuine piece of legislation, he said.That sounds fair, does it not? If we re going to do something progressive, we need to do it as correctly as possible, not half-baked. Rendon does not sound like he s against the plan.Yet, the death threats poured in. Supporters organized protests at Rendon s district office in Los Angeles County, as well as outside the state capitol in Sacramento. Some single-payer supporters held signs depicting the California state flag s grizzly bear stabbed in the back with a knife that reads Rendon. Social media got ugly, as always.I get it. We re all frustrated over the current healthcare situation in America. We all wanted to see how California would do with a single-payer system. It could pave the way for other states and do amazing things for everyone. But I think we should all step back and be rational about things. Rome wasn t built in a day.You have a right to be angry, but people need to stop sending death threats when things don t work out.Featured image via ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

#CharlieHebdo Islam has lost its right as a religion. It shd be declared perverted philosophy like nazism & its glorification banned.

The Russian ministry of defence announced in a report that the commanders of German air forces were in a complete shock after a common mission with Russian air forces over Levanta war zone. This mission proved beyond all doubt that the US cooperate with ISIS on massive stealing of Syrian and Iraqi oil. German forces were able to witness 12 000 ISIS oil barrels and trucks crossing the Turkish-Iraqi border with full protection of the US and Turkey. The report says that there is more and more evidence coming up about Germany being blackmailed by the US, which is why it cannot say anything publically. The author demonstrates the blackmail on the fact that the US absurdly accused Germany of installing a defective software into their diesel cars to deceive machines measuring emissions.

Home This Month Popular Why It’s Absolutely Worth It To Learn Game Why It’s Absolutely Worth It To Learn Game Jon enjoys helping others evolve into their best selves on his blog: Masculine Development and recently launched his eBook on 7 Strategies to Develop Your Masculinity. November 12, 2016 Game After my previous article , which advocated that men learn game as a form of self-development, I got a good amount of disagreement—most of it was not inaccurate. The majority of ROK readers are becoming less and less interested in learning game, simply because Western women are not as attractive as they once were. This isn’t to say that we’ve abandoned learning game as a whole; certainly we still want to get laid and eventually find a girl for a relationship. But, nonetheless, there seems to be a large portion of the manosphere which simply doesn’t believe that game is worth it anymore. In this article, I would like to present a very realistic and objective perspective in regards to learning game. In retrospect, my last article may have been too focused on the positive aspects; I do not wear the rose colored glasses in regards to the game. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. As a veteran myself, I’m quite aware of the troubles that men can encounter when learning game. I’ve been slapped for making mildly offensive jokes, I’ve had drinks thrown on me, I’ve had guys threaten to slit my throat, and more. Despite this, however, I still believe that it is 100% worth it to learn game. Beginner’s Hell “HOW DARE YOU TRY TO ASK ME MY NAME YOU FUCKING RAPIST!” I believe that the reason why most men don’t feel that game is worth it, is because they experience difficulty getting over a period known as “beginner’s hell.” This is when you’re just starting to shrug off your feminist conditioning , and you haven’t developed the confidence or game that you need to succeed. Most beginners walk around, not really knowing how to talk to women , how to carry themselves, or how to flirt in general. Because of this, women will typically have one of two responses: They pity you and ignore you They lash out and berate you for being a “creep,” or “weird.” Of course, you may get the occasional girl who’s drunk enough to be into you, but these are few and far between. For the most part, the “Beginner’s Hell,” phase of learning game is absolutely horrendous. You will be sometimes be targeted by club douchebags, who will either confront you or use their superior social intelligence to embarrass you, and on the rare occasion that you do manage to get a girl talking to you, he’ll come over and steal her. You will have women smack you, ignore you, and tell you off—again, it’s called “beginner’s hell,” for a reason. 6’s Who Think They’re 10’s This initial difficulty in learning game is only compounded by our culture’s general lack of femininity. It is extremely obvious, to anyone with eyes to see, that women in our culture are encouraged to be less and less feminine as time goes on. The once praised virtues of nurturing, empathy, and kindness, have now been replaced by resting bitch face, sociopathy, and social climbing. This coupled with the fact that women experience an endless supply of beta orbiters, means that they’ve been conditioned to believe they’re highly sought after goddesses, who can use men like tissues without any sort of social repercussions (and in fact, they’re sometimes praised for doing so). This is, perhaps, one of the biggest obstacles to newbies struggling to learn game. Couple this with severe approach anxiety, a complete lack of masculinity, and a weak body that hasn’t been trained, and it’s very easy to see why most men don’t see that game is worth it. The Turning Point Once one gets beyond this initial bump, however, most of game is smooth sailing. Once the newbie has learned how to fix his lack of masculinity, how to balance assertiveness with consent , and has improved his game in general, he enters what I call the turning point. The turning point is essentially that point at which learning game is no longer a struggle, but it’s actually enjoyable. This is due to several key lifestyle and mindset shifts which take place as the newbie gets more and more success, such as: Drawing state from within, rather than from without Being in a state of abundance, rather than scarcity Improving other areas of your life, which creates an upwards spiral If you’re a newbie struggling to learn game, and you don’t feel like it’s worth it, I fully empathize with your pain—the problem is that when you don’t have much game, of course learning game will be hard, because you get stuck with the bitchy fat girls. When you start to develop the three characteristics that I mentioned, however, a cascade of effects starts to take place that catapults your game to the next level. This allows you to pick and choose which hot girls you want, rather than being at the mercy of the ugly 5 who “might” want to come over and hang out. Internal vs. External Drawing Of State “By my age, you realize that bitches ain’t shit, but hoes and tricks.” The transition from drawing state from outside of you, to drawing state from within you, is literally the difference between a guy that doesn’t pull at all, and a guy that can pull Victoria’s Secret models. Let me explain: women typically draw state from without. This means that their emotions are governed by their environment. This is why they respond so much more to social pressure than men, why they “just want to dance,” when a song they like comes on, and it’s why they’re generally so emotionally volatile. Due to their changing environments, their emotions change rapidly as well. This is why they want men to draw state from within, or in other words, not be affected by their outside environments. This is why women are repulsed by men who care too much about their opinions: it’s indicative of a man who draws state from without. As a man, drawing state from within has numerous benefits, the most obvious of which being that you’re perpetually in a good mood. Once you learn to make this shift, and learn to be happy regardless of your external circumstances, women will pick up on it like a hawk—they’re very attuned to this type of thing, and you’ll definitely notice a difference in their behavior. This will get them vying for YOUR attention, which will start to give you tremendous power. This will make game fun, which will lead to even more women in your life, which will begin the start of your upward spiral. The Beginning Of The Upward Spiral Once you begin to make this simple mindset shift, game will no longer feel like it’s not worth it. You see, game feels like it’s not worth it when you have to put in a huge amount of effort for a below average looking girl, with a horrible personality. But, when you start to get to the point where you can put in a medium amount of effort, for a very gorgeous woman? That’s when game starts to be fun. This basic mindset shift of learning to not care what your environment is like, and to simply be happy by yourself, will create a chain reaction within your life. First, you’ll start to get much more women much more easily. This will allow you to start a harem, which will keep you in a perpetual state of abundance until you find a girl you want for a relationship. This state of abundance will amplify your game by about five fold. Women will sense that you’ve got a ton of other women vying for your attention, and they will do the same—it’s like a magnet that just draws them in. Plus, if a girl does or says something that you dislike, you can simply kick her out of your life since you have so many other women. Then, when you start to have so many women in your life, you’ll start to friend zone hot girls for the social benefits , because you simply can’t handle sleeping with all of them. They’ll invite you to parties, and try to hook you up with their friends, and you’ll receive many of the social benefits that they do. Game Is Worth It (It Just Sucks At First) Getting over beginner’s hell is a lot like this. Once you get to the other side, it’s all downhill, though. As I have made clear, learning game at first is a huge struggle—you will encounter massive cock blocks, a lot of negativity from women, and not to mention you’ll have to deal with all of the white knights, too. But, if you can learn to get over this initial Beginner’s Hell, as I’ve coined it, you will see the other side of reality that most men are shielded from. I realize that it can be very difficult to learn game at first, and can feel like it isn’t worth it, but if you make a decision to put in the effort and learn it, your world will literally be 1000x better than before. If you’re struggling with learning game initially, be sure to maximize your appearance. Get some height increasing soles, read through some of the style articles on ROK, get a good designer haircut, and learn to perfect your appearance, at least as much as you can. Consider taking some martial arts classes to boost your confidence, as well. Ultimately, however, if you want to learn game and experience what it’s like to have dozens of hot girls hitting you up, you just have to bite the bullet and go out. Go clubbing, go to bars, go on trips to Las Vegas or Miami. Approach women during the day and approach them during the night—eventually you’ll get over this “Beginner’s Hell,” and will experience an abundance of women in your life.

"One-third of Floridians own guns. One-third."

BRASILIA (Reuters) - A leniency deal struck between the controlling shareholders of Brazilian meatpacker JBS SA and prosecutors may be partially revoked, threatening witnesses immunity but keeping their testimony, the country s top prosecutor said on Monday. Prosecutor General Rodrigo Janot said at a news conference that billionaire meat tycoon Joesley Batista and a fellow state s witness seemed to have inadvertently recorded a four-hour conversation discussing crimes not covered in their plea bargain. The audio was submitted to prosecutors on Thursday as an attachment to an unrelated matter, he said. Joesley Batista and his brother Wesley previously confessed to bribing scores of politicians in plea bargain testimony that allowed them to avoid prosecution. With their help, prosecutors got a recording of President Michel Temer apparently endorsing hush payments to a possible witness in a graft probe. Janot said the new audio was very troubling because it suggested the Batistas had not been forthcoming about all of their crimes. He also said the audio implicated someone at the Supreme Court of unspecified wrongdoing and suggested that a prosecutor in his office had aided the Batistas illegally. Janot said evidence from their plea bargain testimony, which he has used to bring corruption charges against Temer, will stand regardless of whether witnesses lose immunity after an investigation of the new audio. The prosecutor general is expected to bring a second wave of charges against Temer in coming weeks. Questions about the Batistas testimony are likely to hang over the charges against Temer, making it easier for members of Congress to prevent the president from facing trial at the Supreme Court, as they did with earlier charges. Temer declined to comment on the matter when asked by reporters in China. J&F Investimentos SA, the holding company through which the Batista family controls JBS, said Janot had hastily interpreted the recording, which contained considerations of hypotheses and did not compromise the good faith of the witnesses. The company agreed in May to pay a leniency fine of 10.3 billion reais ($3.3 billion) for its role in a political bribery scheme. Since then, Joesley Batista resigned as chairman of JBS, but his brother Wesley remains chief executive and has been fighting efforts to remove him led by state development bank BNDES, another major shareholder in the world s largest meatpacker. Janot opened an investigation on Monday into revising the leniency deals of Joesley Batista and two other J&F executives, according to a document on his office s website. Since the plea deal, J&F has been racing to sell assets in order to reduce debt and pay the leniency fine. In three months, the holding company has signed agreements to sell Havaianas flip-flops maker Alpargatas SA, dairy company Vigor Alimentos SA and pulpmaker Eldorado Brasil Celulose SA. ($1 = 3.1409 reais)

@TyrellMayfield @SOrtbals the problem is that you trust cops like they are your first line of defense... You have to protect yourself always

Lonely Ka’bah from Tawaf after Saudi Arabia makes policy on coronavirus.

This video needs to be shared over and over again, as America slips closer and closer to the edge with a potentially disasterous Hillary or Bernie Sanders presidency

Today, Donald Trump yanked us out of the Paris climate agreement something we helped craft and onto which every country in the world but two signed and the backlash has been swift and harsh. He s lost two members of his business council; mayors of blue-collar cities like Pittsburgh have blasted him even though he claims to have done this for them; world leaders have blown up at us; and even The Weather Channel has jumped on Trump.The Weather Channel might be expected to do this because they re in the business of reporting and forecasting the weather, which is directly influenced by the climate. They also report on other natural events affected by the weather. So, to express their displeasure at Trump s completely idiotic move, they ve done this to their front page:Yeah. There isn t much we can add to that.The idiots who are crowing over this decision, who actually believe that this will make America great again, can t see past their own noses. They have no concept of how the world actually works outside their own bubbles. As such, they have no concept of how their pathetic bubbles are affected by things like climate change, and that ignorant and myopic view hurts us all.Utah Senator Mike Lee said we don t want nations lecturing us, like the petulant you re not the boss of me schoolchild who doesn t want to cooperate on anything. Rand Paul called it unfair, while Paul Ryan called it a raw deal. Ted Cruz said that the Paris deal would have cost us too much without acknowledging the fact that the U.S. literally just gave up its position as world leader, and that climate change will cost us far more than the Paris agreement ever could have.Meanwhile, world leaders are busy condemning us for Trump s stupidity. Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen called it a sad day, while Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris agreement. Italy, France and Germany released a joint statement blasting Trump over the idea that he can pull us out and then remake the agreement into something far more to his liking: We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies. French President Emmanuel Macron yelled at us separately, too: I tell you firmly tonight: We will not renegotiate a less ambitious accord. There is no way. Don t be mistaken on climate; there is no plan B because there is no planet B. And Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel shredded Trump on Twitter over this decision:I condemn this brutal act against #ParisAccord @realDonaldTrump Leadership means fighting climate change together. Not forsaking commitment. Charles Michel (@CharlesMichel) June 1, 2017Here at home, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee and California Governor Jerry Brown announced that they re creating a United States Climate Alliance, in hopes that the states will abide by the Paris agreement in a direct fuck you to Donald Trump:If the administration won t #ActOnClimate, the states will.Proud to join @JerryBrownGov and @GovInslee to form the US Climate Alliance. pic.twitter.com/X6L5PiCZBw Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 1, 2017President Obama called it absence of American leadership, and said that the Trump administration has [rejected] the future. In reference to Trump s disputed statement that he works for Pittsburgh, not Paris (Pittsburgh s mayor blasted him for that), Commander Scott Kelly, up on the International Space Station, had some harsh but true words for Trump, too:Withdrawing from the #ParisAgreement will be devastating to our planet. Paris and Pittsburgh share the same environment after all. pic.twitter.com/QNO5vHtmEF Scott Kelly (@StationCDRKelly) June 1, 2017Tesla s Elon Musk and Disney s Bob Iger both announced that they re leaving Trump s presidential business council, and Musk is departing another council on which he served:Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world. Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 1, 2017As a matter of principle, I ve resigned from the President s Council over the #ParisAgreement withdrawal. Robert Iger (@RobertIger) June 1, 2017Even Goldman Sachs is upset about this! Their CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, tweeted for the very first time today, and shredded Trump over this decision too:Today s decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S. s leadership position in the world. #ParisAgreement Lloyd Blankfein (@lloydblankfein) June 1, 2017Trump will not get his glory for this. It won t merely be delayed as we start seeing jobs pouring back into the country, or thousands of new jobs suddenly pop up in coal country as the coal companies realize they don t have to worry about the Paris agreement anymore. There will be no glory. And Republicans who scream about American exceptionalism no longer have justification to do so. The United States does not renege on its commitments except for when Donald Trump is in charge.Featured image by Olivier Douliery-Pool via Getty Images

BREAKING: Wall Street Journal Reveals Shock Business Details About Podesta and Russia Oct 28, 2016 Previous post Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta has been linked to an investment firm owned by the Russian government. Moreover, it has been shown that he tried to hide this connection from the U.S. government. Five years ago, the U.S.-based solar energy startup Joule Unlimited elected Podesta to its board of directors in the hopes that he would help it foster the sorts of international relationships needed for long-term success, according to The Wall Street Journal . Lo and behold, Podesta did exactly that. Within months of his election to the board, the Russian firm Rusnano announced plans to invest about $35 million in the solar company. Several months later, Joule invited Rusnano’s chairman Anatoly Chubais to join its board of directors. Note that around this time, Podesta joined then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board, seemingly unconcerned about the potential conflicts of interest at play. This attitude changed in 2014, when he signed up to serve as a counselor to President Barack Obama. Hacked emails published by WikiLeaks last week showed that in 2014, Podesta asked that his shares in Joule be transferred to a newly created entity called Leonidio Holdings, LLC. Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, a Clinton campaign representative confirmed this finding, but claimed that the entity was owned by Podesta’s children — and that his purpose in transferring his holdings to them was to recuse “himself from all matters pertaining to Joule for the duration of his time at the White House.” Here’s the problem: The emails published by WikiLeaks also revealed that Podesta paid the bill for Leonidio’s incorporation in Delaware — and that he also took care of expenses for some legal work performed for Joule in 2005 by a law firm FOR ENTIRE ARTICLE CLICK LINK

Only 18 percent of jobs are accessible by transit for metro Atlanta residents. 33 percent for those living in the city.

@hr1978b @RitaPanahi @nixiberry WHO THE BLOODY HELL IS TALKIN ABOUT FRANCE. The post was about freedom if speech and extremism

@dangainor @NikkiWoods @rolandsmartin The Black Panthers!

CNN and other outlets were in high dudgeon Friday afternoon after several news outlets were apparently excluded from a White House press gaggle, complaining that conservative, “ ” outlets like Breitbart News were allowed into the briefing. [Those excluded called it “absolutely unacceptable” and described it as an attack on the freedom of the press. CNN was blocked from WH @PressSec‘s media gaggle today. This is our response: pic. twitter. — CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 24, 2017, CNN’s media correspondent Brian Stelter accused the Trump administration from trying to “ ” questions, defeating the media’s ability to hold the president accountable. Dean Baqeut, executive editor of the New York Times, said: “Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. ” However, as the New York Times itself reported in 2015, President Barack Obama met privately with liberal reporters and columnists frequently throughout his tenure in office — “more than a dozen” times. And although he occasionally invited conservative columnists, “ columnists from newspapers tend to dominate at Mr. Obama’s secret sessions. ” Obama’s private briefings for liberal members of the media, which excluded conservatives, were . A few: On Friday, CNN media reporter Dylan Byers expressed concern at the alleged exclusion of media outlets. Yet in 2015, he wrote about the frequency of Obama’s private meetings with journalists. Byers noted that President Obama “holds the occasional meeting with conservatives,” but the list of “regulars” included a roster of prominent liberal journalists. Some at CNN NYT stood News when the Obama admin attacked us tried 2 exclude WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs https: . — Bret Baier (@BretBaier) February 24, 2017, In reaction to the exclusion of some outlets from Friday’s briefing, Fox News’ Bret Baier noted that some journalists at CNN and the Times had stood up to the Obama administration when it tried to exclude Fox News from White House briefings. That is true — and admirable. The question of whether some outlets are being excluded from otherwise public briefings is a valid one — and, as of this writing, the White House has not yet clarified why some outlets were not included in the gaggle. Nevertheless, the New York Times‘ claim that “[n]othing like this has ever happened” is simply false — or “fake news. ” Update: The White House has denied claims that it excluded any outlets at all: White House Deputy Comms. Dir. Raj Shah denies reports of a gaggle block against CNN, NYT, Politico and others: pic. twitter. — ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 24, 2017, CNN’s Jake Tapper, host of The Lead, opened his show by calling Trump’s attitude toward the press “ . ” . @jaketapper: ”The White House does not value an independent press. There is a word for that: .” https: . pic. twitter. — The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) February 24, 2017, Joel B. Pollak is Senior at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, December 5, 2012. NEW YORK — As the bizarre 2016 presidential election nears its end, activists in the United States are considering the prospects for war and peace under the next administration. And with Hillary Clinton leading comfortably in most polls, the Democratic nominee’s militaristic record, as well as her promises to expand the use of force, are sparking concern. “Clinton is one of the biggest war-mongers the country has,” Joe Lombardo, co-coordinator of the United National Antiwar Coalition , told MintPress News. “She pushed for the bombing of Libya and the regime change in that country. She has supported a no-fly zone in Syria, which can put the U.S. in direct conflict with Russia.” On the campaign trail, Clinton has repeatedly advocated a “no-fly zone” in Syria, an aggressive move necessarily accompanied by a widespread bombing campaign, similar to those in Iraq and Libya, which were followed by expanded interventions to impose regime change. Senior U.S. military pilots have warned that the proposal could plunge the United States into direct conflict with Russia, whose air force is currently deployed over Syria. In September, Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that the prospect “requires us to go to war against Syria and Russia.” ‘Kill a lot of Syrians’ “It is critical that we not be confused about what Clinton’s promise of a no-fly zone will mean,” Meredith Aby of the Minneapolis-based Anti-War Committee told MintPress. “It is an escalation of U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war and it will mean an increase in casualties.” In 2013, Clinton herself admitted in a paid speech to Goldman Sachs, obtained and released by WikiLeaks in September, that her proposal would “kill a lot of Syrians.” “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas,” she said. Beyond Syria, Clinton has also threatened to attack and “totally obliterate” Iran , and she has repeatedly promised to take the United States’ ties with Israel “to the next level.” In August, after accusing Russia and China of hacking U.S. computer systems, she warned : “We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.” ‘A voice for war since 2002’ US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, left, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talk in Jerusalem, Israel, Monday, July 16, 2012. These statements, along with Clinton’s long, unbroken record of supporting military interventions, have anti-war activists eying the future warily. “Many in the anti-war movement understand the dangers of a Clinton presidency,” Aby said. “From her resume it is fairly obvious she will be a hawk, more so than President Obama and President Clinton. She has been a voice for war since 2002 when she voted for war in Iraq.” Beyond Clinton’s explicit threats of wars, her administration may also seek to expand the use of “soft power,” ranging from diplomatic assistance and military aid to subversion and coups, in pursuit of its foreign policy goals. “She has called for boosting U.S. support for Israeli missile defense systems and supports helping Israel with technology to fight in Gaza,” Aby said, adding: “On the campaign trail, she has denounced the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as a threat to Israel. And while she hasn’t campaigned on it, she is no friend of Latin America. Her own emails show the role she played in helping provide support for the coup in Honduras.” Lombardo also noted that regions further removed from the headlines than flashpoints like Syria could face similar threats from a Hillary Clinton administration. “The Philippines is heating up and Clinton has a history in Latin America, where there are many places that the U.S. would like to see regime change,” he said. ‘A very unpopular president from day one’ In the waning months of the campaign, both Clinton and her Republican rival, Donald Trump, have emerged as historically unpopular candidates , more so than others in the era of scientific polling. Indeed, while Trump’s aggression has kept his popularity below Clinton’s, she recently surpassed the bellicose billionaire as the least-liked candidate in history. A poll released by ABC News and the Washington Post on Tuesday showed Clinton’s unpopularity had reached a record-breaking 60 percent, while Trump’s stood at 58 percent. Despite her jingoism and promises to expand U.S. military efforts far beyond those of Barack Obama, organizers hope this public disdain may give them room to maneuver. “Although Clinton will win the presidency, she will be a very unpopular president from day one, which will give us the political space to organize opposition to her foreign policy,” Aby said. Lombardo agreed. “Clinton is very unpopular, and while the election of Obama put a damper on the anti-war movement, I believe we will see that turn around under Clinton.” He also noted the growth of domestic social movements, like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, that could herald a resurgence in mobilization. “There is a downturn in the economy, distrust of the government and the system as a whole,” Lombardo said. “The connections with the wars abroad and the wars at home is clear to more and more people. I think a movement against increased war can be explosive and powerful during a Clinton administration.” But he added that there was much work to be done. “Although anti-war sentiment in the U.S. is high, the anti-war movement in weak compared to where it was in the past.” ‘No optimism, only apprehension’ A woman with the words “hands off” painted on her face takes part in a protest organized by the Stop the War coalition calling for no military attack on Syria from the U.S., Britain or France, across the road from the entrance of Downing Street in London, Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. As the clock ticks down to the election, numerous organizations have launched new efforts they hope will preempt the war drive expected to start soon after Jan. 20. Along with other groups and individual supporters, the United National Antiwar Coalition launched a “Hands Off Syria Coalition” and accompanying statement against further U.S. intervention in the war-torn country. The effort “is getting a tremendous response,” Lombardo said. Other organizations, including the ANSWER Coalition and International Action Center , have called for protests against the inauguration in Washington. “There’s no optimism, only apprehension,” International Action Center co-director Sara Flounders told MintPress. “People know in their bones that a larger war is coming. From the first day of a new administration, we need to send an angry warning.” But with the United States fatigued from a grueling election season that has left few residents with positive impressions of either candidate, widespread distrust of the political system may deny the new president the mandate he or she would need to embark on new military adventures. “I think people are less naive now then they were eight years ago,” Aby said. “People understand that foreign policy is not an issue that truly separates the two major party candidates.”