Slog AM: Everett vs. the Bikini Baristas, Trump Still Employs Undocumented Workers, A Kenyan Fart



"Grinning Trump gives thumbs-up with the baby
whose parents were shot dead in El Paso terror attack."

What, trumpfy's gonna adopt the baby?
That's one way to get Free Labor for his
Mal-a-Ragoo rich white folks resort.

A little more Stochastic terrorism from 'our' White house
and he'll never need write another (short) paycheck.


Those who relish seizing on Biden's verbal typo and making hay over it (Biden IMMEDIATELY corrected himself) aren't being very helpful in our ultimate goal which is defeating Trump.


That photo of Prezirapist AntiChrist and Melanoma grinning while holding that orphaned baby whose parents had just been executed by a Tr666p Terrorist...

They’re soulless psychopaths.


Joaquin Castro is a moron. Those donors are now getting harassed by random people and at least five of them donated to Castro's campaign as well.


I read that walmarts are also removing violent video games from shelves now, I hope they use the extra space to sell more guns.


@4: And yet at the end of that article, the baby's surviving relatives make it clear that the kid's parents were Trump supporters, so I guess that makes it OK?


“Trump is supposed to be consoling people in a hospital, and I think we all know nothing says ‘I’m sorry for your loss’ quite like the double thumbs up.” --James Corden, on late-nite teevee


In 20 years when that baby is an adult we will be talking about that photo again and it won’t be cute. This disgraceful, depraved presidency will not be remembered kindly.


@ 7,

Every day I think that the nauseating, sinister stupidity, cruelty, and indecent depravity of the American public can’t get any worse... and then each day reveals new horrors.

“In America, the nightmare begins when you wake up.”


Never again means never again.

“Trump’s Twitter account, like Hitler’s radios, enables a charismatic leader to establish and maintain a personal, unfiltered line of communication with an adoring political base of about 30–40 percent of the population, many (but not all) of whom are only too willing, even anxious, to swallow Trump’s witches’ brew of falsehoods, half-truths, personal invective, threats, xenophobia, national security scares, religious bigotry, white racism, exploitation of economic insecurity, and a never ending-search for scapegoats.”


@6 correction: video game SIGNAGE


it’s not doxxing when someone shares information that is publicly available


11 - Yes, he charged that cop running backwards with his hands over his head in air, and it still took a total of 12 rounds to subdue him! He should have been a decathlete but alas just one of those Other.


Plenty of people have called biden’s remarks racist but racism is the animating force of trump’s entire political career and it’s not a double standard to notice the difference. It’s possible for one person to be more racist than another. This isn’t complicated.


@14: Just because information is publicly available doesn't make it right for someone to aggregate it and publicize it for demented fringies to go out and harass donors they take issue with.

I'm sure you value your privacy too.


Anyone who has donated money to Trump's re-election campaign is guilty of abetting the most criminal regime in this nation's history.
I want to know the identity of those people.


@20: I don't. History shows the resulting mob mentality you salivate for typically gets very bloody.


@19 i never said it was “right” or even a good idea just that it’s not doxxing or violating anyone’s privacy to release information that has already been released, please see the dictionary for the literal definitions of the operative words in this discussion if you are confused by any of it



"All successful politicians adapt their communication
style to fit the dominant media of their time."

And trumpfy's style is to label any media exposure
of his stochastic terrorism, high crimes,
misdemeanors and who he really is "FAKE NEWS."

HIs "success" will be when the United States
adopts full-blown Fascism.

We're nearly there!


@22: So noted. But you can't dismiss that without that clarification your comment appeared to give deference to the practice.


@23, continued: "Trump has attempted to delegitimize the entire fact-based press in the eyes of his supporters. 'Stick with us,' he said in a speech last week. 'Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news . . . . What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.'

George Orwell gets quoted too liberally these days, but, as the national-security expert David Priess pointed out, these statements were Orwellian in the extreme. ('The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.')

The cult of hair Furor knows what it knows
and that's pretty much all there is to it.


I accurately characterized what castro did, which is substantially less terrible than what he was accused of doing. Blame the person who leveled false charges, not the one who corrected him.


@25, continued: "Trump may think he is playing a political game. But, in a country that is littered with extremist groups, and where there are more than three hundred million guns in private hands, it is an extremely dangerous one.

In less dark times, one might have hoped that senior members of Trump’s party would deliver this message to him forcefully. But today, with so much of the G.O.P. prostrating itself before its rogue President, what chance is there of that happening?"

I suppose it might happen when there are
THREE mass executions of non-White
people in one day.

But, who knows?

What the Fuck's it gonna take, Republicans?


@20: Democracy includes the right of our adversaries to vote and campaign for their candidate.


Biden sounds like he's about 1/10th as bad on a bad day as Trump on a good day.

Just saying.


@26 That's debatable. Castro was targeting certain donors and let his thousands of followers do the work. A donor on that list already received threatening voicemails from random people. Plus he only selected the white donors, there were several Hispanic donors to Trump that were left off his list.


@29 we live in a free country, the information is freely available from a government website.

Try hating America less and working for Russia less.


Again. What castro did was bad, but it was not doxxing.


Is it on?
Don't start without us!
We'll be bringing 200 million guns loaded for bear.
What will you bring?


We realize Nathalie is a credulous ignorant Leftist hack but even a credulous ignorant Leftist hack should know that Michael Brown was on a late night robbery spree when confronted by a police officer, who he assaulted and tried to take his service weapon from.
Any outcome other that Brown bleeding out in the middle of the street would have been a travesty.
Eric Holder and Obama's Justice Department investigated and found the officer acted appropriately.
For which he received death threats and lost his job.
"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was a LIE, according to Holder.
Everyone who parroted it (we are looking at you, NFL players, Black Caucus, etc etc) was slandering the brave officer who was doing his duty.

@17 You are an ignorant little bitch.


@4 are we nuts to see that? Biblical prophecy? So weird



All those well armed 60+ year olds would seem a lot more threatening without the oxygen tanks and mobility scooters.


"The billionaire donor class doesn't get to have it both ways. They want money to equal speech so they can purchase as many politicians as their money will buy, but want those of us who provide them with that money to be kept in the dark about them supporting politicians who do us direct harm through their policies."

--snarkqueeen, from comments on "Trump’s Opponents Want to Name His Big Donors. His Supporters Say It’s Harassment"'s NYT.


@21 Trump is accused of being a white supremacist and here you are wanting the people who finance him to remain in the shadow? and accuse the people shining light on these white supremacists of being a mob? You must have been watching Fox propaganda again.



How about the entire United States military for starters? I mean, you DO realize everyone currently serving swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." - please make note of that last word, it might be of some relevance to your particular situation.


@40: See 28.


Biden's gaffe was bad. Posting Andrew Clark's Twitter is worse.


Shirley, you jest.
The military, current and ex, realize the forces that seek to deprive Americans of their 2nd amendment rights are the domestic enemies they are sworn to destroy.
Perhaps The Left will have the support of the transgendered soldiers who leak government secrets but the guys who tote guns will have your ass in their sights.



The justice department chose not to prosecute the officer-involved because they didn't think they had enough evidence to win.
The justice department never said that Brown's death was justified.
Brown's DNA was on the officer's weapon and uniform, the DNA could have been placed there after Brown's death.
The only other physical evidence was slight bruising on the officer's face. It is unclear what caused the bruising.

Multiple Witnesses also gave conflicting reports of the incident.
Because of all of these factors it would have been highly unlikely that the justice department would have been able to successfully prosecute a case against the officer.

Those are all facts, so we know you are interested.


It was reasonable for police Officer Darren Wilson to be afraid of Michael Brown in their encounter last summer, a Justice Department investigation concluded.

An 86-page report released Wednesday found that physical evidence and credible witnesses supported Wilson’s version of the event.

In a speech in Washington, Attorney General Eric Holder concluded, “Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer Wilson.” Holder said that the decision “represents the sound, considered and independent judgment of the expert career prosecutors,” and that he concurred.


The republican supreme court ruled that political donations are free speech so if republican donors don't like being accountable for their "words" they can feel free to stfu.



Are you day drinking again?

In case you've forgotten, we've been through something like this before. It was a little something called the Civil War.

Guess what? A whole bunch of those Northern soldiers were racists, and they didn't want to fight to free slaves.
Most of them fought for the Union anyway. Some of them ran away. I bet a few that ran away even switched sides and joined the Confederacy.
The majority of them stayed in the Union Army. They fought for the Union Army, and the Union Army defeated the Confederacy.

You keep on living in Fantasyland there buddy.



The report didn't exonerate the officer.
Just like I said.

There is a big difference between not having enough evidence to prosecute someone and exonerating them.

I know that's an impossible distinction for some people to make, but it's the truth.


We remember well, how we Republicans supported The Constitution and utterly defeated the Democrats.
Are you up for a rematch?



I did.

The report did not exonerate the officer.

Not having enough evidence to successfully prosecute someone does not make that person innocent.


The report found the physical evidence and credible witnesses totally supported the officers account.
It totally unequivocally exonerated him.



Here is a little clue for you.

Would the Attorney General have called Brown's death a tragedy if he believed the officer had acted in self-defense?



Except that's not what the report said.


28, continued

"Republicans loved the SCOTUS for humanizing businesses
by equating them to people.

But when businesses are boycotted because of their
behaviors (in this case donating to DJT), they cry foul.

Republicans constantly deride George Soros
for donating to the Democratic party.

But when Stephen Ross is identified as a donor
and a host to DJT, they cry foul.

You can't have it both ways dear Republicans!"



I know you have a problem with words, so here's a little help for you:

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

The issue never went to court, therefore the officer was not exonerated.

Do you think that OJ Simpson's acquittal exonerated him?



On a different note:

Every time you click a link on The Stranger, every time you post here or someone responds to one of your posts, you are generating more ad revenue for The Stranger.

They should give you an award.


@62 -- They gave me a Dollar!


@60 You got that right.

If it hasn't occurred to anyone commenting here, Slog AM and PM are just rehashes of news stories reported elsewhere in more depth and enlightening detail. Slog is really just space filler. Why bother to get so incensed about it, and who really cares that you do?



exonerate: verb
ex·​on·​er·​ate | \ ig-ˈzä-nə-ˌrāt , eg-\
exonerated; exonerating
Definition of exonerate
transitive verb

1 : to clear from accusation or blame

2 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship


@49 How do you plan to hold people accountable for their donations?


I will be mad about people listing businesses that support trump just as soon as I finish smashing this Snoopy sno-cone maker and posting the vid to 8chan to own the libs.



That's the dictionary definition of the noun "exonerate", which is generic and differs significantly from the legal definition that @61 cited, and which also differs even from the definition of "exoneration" per M-W:

exoneration noun

ex·​on·​er·​a·​tion | \ ig-ˌzä-nə-ˈrā-shən, eg- \

Legal Definition of exoneration:

1 : the act of disburdening or discharging (as from a charge, liability, obligation, duty, or responsibility)

also : the state of being so freed

2a : the right of a person who has paid a debt for which he or she is only secondarily liable to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable

b : the right of a surety to require a person or estate that is subject to a liability for which the surety is secondarily liable to discharge the liability thus relieving the surety
also : the equitable remedy by which the surety compels discharge of the liability



For folks like the 404 troll things like facts have no real meaning.
All people like that are worried about are there feeling.

You'll notice that I never put forth any opinion about the Brown case, I just pointed out that their conclusions were inaccurate.
That's enough to trigger snowflakes like 404.



Never trust speech to text.


Seems like the folks here and Trump supporters do have something in common - an aversion to any facts that don't support what they believe.

Stranger person: you don't agree with me, you must be a Russian troll
Trump person: you don't agree with me, you hate America

Stranger person: I believe in the rule of law but when Eric Holder, a liberal African American says the law doesn't support prosecuting someone I would like to be prosecuted, we don't believe it.
Trump person: I believe in God and America but I voted for Trump because I don't like Hillary and immigrants are taking over, and proof cannot can make me believe otherwise

Stranger person: I want union jobs and affordable housing but we should also let in all the immigrants that want to come (because you know, a giant labor pool of unskilled worker sure helps keep wages up). (Best part is the big business has the Democrats keeping their cheap labor protected! They are being old time republicans.)
Trump person: I hate liberuls and immigrants but I sure like my cheap stuff at Walmart and not picking vegetables.

Y'all ain't that different. Two flavors of the same ice cream and averse to logic.


I forgot to add - Trump voters are old people and Stranger folks are people who are either trust fund kids or on disability. Both apparently have all the time in the world and are saving the world from their chairs. Well done everyone.


@67 I believe you may have received some misinformation. The donors that were targeted were mostly retirees not big companies.


@73 Boycotting retirees sounds pretty safe for everyone involved, but then maybe you've got a much more lucrative retirement in mind than I do.


@74 they aren't boycotting retirees they are harassing them.


@65 is the dictionary definition of the verb "exonerate",
which was used in @56,
but apparently went over the head of @61.

You should read Holder's report; it is only 85 pages; it totally unequivocally exonerated the police officer.