Wait, did they only do one live show? I got to go because a friend won a 4-pack of tickets by calling into a radio contest while he was grounded. Best grounding ever! Had no idea that was a one-off. One fact I learned at the show: Joel's jumpsuit had the bottom parts of the legs cut off when they were damaged in a fire, so while you never see it, he's always in shorts.

My counter is the previously mentioned authors who have spent there lives researching and living the things they write about. I'm not referring to their work to be condescending or to have a pissing contest. I've mentioned previously that anything I say will just be a poor regurgitation of their work, and it's a massive time saver for both of us when I can just refer you to them.

Yes I have an agenda. It's to stop this madness from both the left and right. The right are a lost cause, but the left can get there.

Your video, McConaughey's Dad Won a Motorbike in a Pissing Contest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Interesting hypothesis.

She should probably give more credit to the generation above her. It's the same old miscalculation and underestimation I see time and again. The generation above her are just as adaptable, caring, etc as her generation but in different circumstances. They are the ones who brought the world together for her generation to enjoy (they invented just about every high tech thing she enjoys).

Nice condescending line there too, "statistics tell us Trump voters are uneducated". Implying they have no education. Perhaps she should have said less educated.

"Older voters didn't grow up with the internet". True. A group of older voters invented it though. And the rest adapted to using it just fine.

"Teach older folks about climate change". FFS. Really? Perhaps if she looked she'd find that the scientists leading the charge on climate change are "older folks". They've been doing it since before she was born.

"And how to sort out hoaxes on the internet". Like younger people are any better. Lol.

Actually getting a little bored now. She's provided no data to back up anything. Just a stream of consciousness diatribe insulting just about anyone over 40. How thoughtful of her. Not hypocritical at all.

Side note: there was no competition to win the popular vote. You can't win something there is no contest over. Hillary received more of the vote we call the "popular vote". She didn't win anything. Just like you don't win the most yards gained. It is just another metric that has zero bearing on the outcome of the competition.

That still doesn't cover it. I've seen this claim, it's just spam from Trump to Alfa bank.

That doesn't explain why traffic peaked at important campaign moments.

It doesn't explain why the server on Trump's end suddenly went offline as soon as Alfa Bank was informed the connection was under observation.

It doesn't explain why there was as much communication coming FROM Alfa as there was leaving Trump's end.

It doesn't explain why the pattern mimics the usage of humans (computers don't sleep, they spam 24/7).

It doesn't explain why a NEW server on Trump's end opened for business a few days after the old one shut down and the VERY FIRST communication with another internet node was with Alfa Bank.

It's not 100% lock evidence. But, coupled with Trump's echoing of Putin policy positions, get rid of NATO, cede Ukraine, support Bashir al Assad, AND the fact that he's had three close advisors who have had direct financial and personal connection with Putin or Putin cronies (not to even mention his own financial dealings in Russia, which he won't reveal, even though he acknowledges that he's got "a lot" of money from Russia), I'd say it's pretty damning. Certainly more damning than anything in Clinton's e-mails AND the implications are greater. Clinton probably skirted the rules to benefit herself. Trump is almost certainly working as a Russian agent, even when it conflicts with American interests. I'd say that's no contest.

To bad they decided to forget this moral outrage this cycle, or we would have a different Democratic nominee and it would be no contest. Instead they decided that this time, ignoring and changing the rules would be the preferred methodology, the only method possible to make their friend 'win' the primary, leaving us with a 50/50 chance of president Trump, and a 100% chance of another 4 years of partisan deadlock and further division. The Republicans are already saying that if she wins, they'll be fine with only 8 justices for 4 years and won't even hold hearings on nominees.
If not for the likely alternative this cycle, I would say the Democrats deserve to lose and absolutely should not be rewarded for the underhanded bullshit they pulled. Lucky for them, the Republicans have countered her with the only person they could find that's almost certainly worse in every way, and a bunch of congressmen/women that support him. The dems have certainly lost my support until they clean house and figure out some reparation...maybe a pre-emptive backing of Sanders for president in 2020?
Before someone tries to spout some b.s. to try to shame me, a no vote for Clinton is NOT a vote for Trump.

These things seem to continue to ignore Jill Stein.

And in doing so, they miss an important point: Johnson is the "spoiler candidate" for TRUMP. In other words, the chances of votes for Johnson swinging the plurality of votes in a hotly contested state in favor of Clinton are massively higher than swinging such a state into favoring Trump.

Stein is the spoiler candidate for Clinton. But die-hard Democrats should be pleased with her poll numbers being low, which suggests that fewer usually-Democrat voters are looking for an alternative option than usually-Republican voters. In other words, the Democrat party is currently more unified than the Republican party.

...But before patting themselves on the back too hard, they should remember that perhaps the only reason that their historically disliked candidate is more unifying than the GOP option is that he is even MORE historically disliked. A dubious distinction at best.

I think I'll stick with my protest vote (for Stein), thank you very much.

Well he does say he has no 'smoking gun'.

The thing is, nothing he said is proof, but everything he said follows logical steps and a chain of verifiable evidence to a conclusion, which cannot be said of the 1001 supposedly 'disqualifying' offenses the GOP claims Clinton's been party to. Olberman's story is exactly what investigative reporters are supposed to do and exactly what they've been failing to do in the US for decades now.

How come we're just finding out about Trump's past rapey comments now? Why wasn't the media asking those Miss Teen USA contestants about their experiences until this week? The media has fallen flat and Olberman is one of the few trying to prop it up again. Hell, he's not even a real journalist, he's a sports reporter. Maybe that's why he missed the part in Journalism school about rolling over for big money and special interests like a lap dog.

His conclusions may be questioned, but he is clear from the report they are HIS conclusions, not verifiable facts. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

I know that if you didn't have rules like that you would start to see people abusing it for gain, but it does warm the heart to see an actual kind thing done and then allowed at the pro level.

Of course whoever was in 4th wanted to contest it but the guy lost in in the last 1% of the race and he also obviously ran until total collapse, I am glad it was ruled this way!

It's a talent contest, not a game show.

Don't you just hate it when you don't have a point so you try to be priggish and correct someone on a technicality ....but you get it wrong?

The whole lot of them acting like a bunch of fucking kids, not a single one deserves any praise for how they acted. But I don't know how anyone can criticise the two idiots screaming at each other, waving their arms around and go on to credit the idiot screaming fat fuck making the entire thing worse. Ready for a fight? She was my hope to be the sensible one in this testosterone filled dick measuring contest. She's a social justice advocate, you'd think she might not body shame someone. This is bread and butter for her rivals, they'll use this against her for years - hypocrite!

Spitting, swearing, screaming, gatecrashing, name calling, physical intimidation.... they have all damaged their own reputations.

This is why people don't give a flying shit about politics anymore - they all act like children. This isn't how civilised people behave.

It also makes independent news sources look like sensationalist, fringe bullshit. TYT should be ashamed, this is exactly what the establishment wants - discredit the independent news, ween the proles back on to the mainstream propaganda. It's not just their reputation they're fucking with. You all gave them exactly what they wanted!

More endless cranial rectosis from these idiotic Clinton (and therefore in reality Trump) supporters that would rather put her up as the nominee and lose to Trump than be honest, follow the rules, and have a fair election.

He didn't lose....there was never a contest, it was totally rigged for her in every way possible, and now we have MORE proof of that. Where's the apology from all the asshole Clinton supporters that were angrily and snidely deriding and denigrating Sanders supporters for the claim there was collusion and unfairness in the DNC? Haven't heard a single 'mea culpa' from anyone, just attempted deflection of 'The Russians did this to help Trump' but not a single 'this is really bad and unacceptable from a political party' or even a BP style "we're sorry". Fuck you braindead underhanded people. You are handing Trump the presidency with your bullshit lies and cheating.

Clinton should be disqualified for cheating, and anyone involved should be barred from politics for life. Instead, she's already given Shultz a cushy job for handing her the nomination.

I just posted one for ya sugar smack, and will message you some more. I am not too concerned about votes, getting to find out about killer shit to listen to is better than winning any popularity contest in my opinion. It's also why I <3 the Sift so much!!

Congratulations! Your comment on Finalist for the Best Illusion of the Year Contest 2016 has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!