As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

That's not "underground" reporting. It's Jordan Chariton of TYT, providing additional content besides the more professional coverage straight from the trail. Unlike CNN, they don't have the personnel to create everything in a studio, so it's either this sort of coverage through Facebook videos or no coverage at all.

And frankly, I prefer this less-than-professional coverage with actual content over CNN's professional coverage without content.

As for the question whether it's ok to expose these emails, Glenn Greenwald covered it yesterday.

Finally, whether or not there's anything worth reporting: Lee Fang on Democracy Now.

I know it's a bit of a cliche to say it, but this whole video is just so much Russian propaganda. Right from the very first story 'ignored' by the MSM, you have the very same day coverage by the BBC here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36835678

The only difference is that the BBC coverage has some details that the video's source leaves out, like that the Free Syrian Army condemned the beheading and was seeking to punish those responsible.

There is absolutely zero question that Syria is currently a war zone, with Russian jets dropping Russian made bombs on Syrian civilians. There is overwhelming evidence that chemical weapons have been deployed by BOTH ISIL and the Syrian government.

I'm not really sorry if it seems like the MSM is drawing a picture that makes the Assad regime look like bad guys. The reality is that the FACTS make the Assad regime bad guys. That doesn't make ISIL good guys because they are fighting Assad, criminals try and kill each other all the time and that's what's happening. The really troubling aspect is there exist plenty of Syrian people in the region who legitimately wanted an end to Assad's dictatorship and started a legitimated rebellion and have been almost completely cut out and killed off by both Assad and ISIL. If you've been paying attention, Russian bombing strikes focus heavily on the NON-ISIS rebels because they have legitimacy and thus need to die first.

She is: This entire thing, and all of the clips like it, and all the media coverage she's received for the past year are a political-strip-tease. She's only doing this to set up the strongest possible position in 2020/24. These are planned dog-and-pony shows.

It should matter more that she's not actually doing anything here, but judging by the comments she doesn't have to bother.

To some degree I kinda find a lot of sport infantile. Maybe we should just call the men boys more (Lochte springs to mind...).

It did make me cringe though. There were a few occasions where the commentators actually caught themselves doing it and corrected themselves. Thought overall I found the coverage of women in the Olympics to be broadly reverential and not, in the main, patronising, at least not on the BBC where I was watching it.

Wow, the number of people criticising the tone of the woman in this video... I was too busy being angry at the content. So much of the coverage this year was just offensive.

Um....white racists have done most of those things and more in the past, just in different places and to different people, and most don't get much coverage, and certainly we don't ascribe their actions to all white people.

Whites have drug blacks behind their trucks by the neck, burned them, burned their churches, murdered multiple blacks in their churches, shot hundreds, assaulted, raped, abused, denied medical treatments, denied police protection, experimented on, denied service to, denied employment to, attempted to deny voting to (and thrown away their vote if they manage to vote) blacks....but you never hear the media say the words "white terrorists" or "Christian terrorists".

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

It's funny when he first broke off I didn't think he could carry a show...now he has a completely different show...

But I miss his election coverage on the Daily Show.
Election night he would spout so much believable nonsense.

Interesting to see the differences in coverage. Let's play spot the contrast:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html?_r=0

vs

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/19/phony-controversy-melania-trump-accused-plagiarizing-michelle-obamas-2008-remarks

Windshield is cracked.

From what I have heard from country drivers, you pretty much can't get any insurance coverage for your windshield because of all the gravel roads, so you pretty much drive with it until it is an actual hazard.

Broken comes later.

this is exactly why there will be no learning or awareness gained from this tragedy. you are either "defending a "terrorist"" [not your words, but it is a prevailing part of the public narrative] or you're towing the party line and making sure nothing changes.

i'm not defending the killing of anyone but i am trying to understand why. i'm trying to consider the context and internal logic that drove someone to do this. this made sense to him and we should try to understand why. and honestly, this type of desperate, damaging, and explosive reaction isn't surprising to me considering recent events, the coverage and public reaction to those events, and the categorical inaction that follows.

it is possible to empathize without endorsing the actions.

Thing about jizm tsunamis is that the people at the bottom get the worst of it.

Also, "nothing" is a hyperbole. They most certainly have more to lose, and they'll feel every loss that much more keenly than the better off.

I think there is more to this than just the disillusioned working class sticking two fingers up to the EU elite and taking a gamble on prosperity - frankly I think that is an ugly characterization - it suggests a rash and vindictive people when really I think (or hope?) the bulk had the best intentions for themselves and this country. Desperate for change perhaps, but I don't think they saw it as a gamble.

As for blame...hmm. Can't say I'm particularly sad to see Cameron go, but you do get a feeling of "better the devil you know" when you see the other contenders. This referendum would have been up for play at the next election regardless too. Boris and Gove were the greater opportunists by far. You want rash and reckless? Look no further - Power at any cost. I think the greatest blame is with the media. Not just the tabloids either, even the BBC gave disproportionate coverage to Farage - its the classic chicken-egg thing of them simultaneously wanting to cover what is popular whilst also having massive influence over what is popular.

Anyway, I do think he is dead right about engaging with the leave crowd. What would Jo Cox do, innit. We must answer the bigotry and xenophobia not in kind, but with kindness and compassion.

Indeed, local news coverage:

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/09/motorcyclist-records-road-rage-exchange-with-denver-officer/

The rider didn't complain so the incident isn't being investigated.

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.