I never talked about the nomination, only about liberals pointing out that Sanders would stand a much better shot at winning against Trump.

Yet Sanders not winning the Democratic nomination is sort of the point. The DNC and the talking heads had their mind set on a candidate from amongst their midst, and put their combined weight behind her. They went with a candidate who was vulnerable on just about every angle to attacks from Trump, due to her being a continuation of previous policies. That's not picking the candidate who stands the highest chance of winning the Presidential Election, that's picking someone who represents their own interests. Which is fair enough. But then don't blame the purist liberals for pointing out the dangers of this strategy.

Thing is, we know the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Even more details of this are coming in bit by bit through discovery during the class-action lawsuit filed against the DNC. To call the Hillary Victory Fund a money-laundering operation for the Clinton campaign might even be too kind by now.

We also know that they actively pushed for Trump to be the nominee, thinking the election would be a cakewalk then. Brilliant strategists, the lot of them.

And the same people are running „the Resistence“ now, doubling down on what they did before. How is that for learning a lesson. Instead, they play the blame game. And Maher, in this clip, jumped in and blamed „purist liberals“. Not the DNC, not Clinton for running a campaign based on platitudes, clichés, and everything except policy substance.

If you want to blame the purist liberals for anything, blame them for not having campaigned hard enough, for not having put enough pressure to either get their candidate nominated or to get Clinton to at least pretend to be willing to do something about the suffering of the lower class. Blame the liberals for being content with a few improvements in social policies while swallowing economic policies that cause a continuous degredation of the standard of living of the lower class.

Still, purist liberals kept saying that the antidote against right-wing populism is left-wing populism. Sanders was not vulnerable on policy issues. In fact, this 187 year old bloke with bad posture is nigh untouchable on policy issues. When even Trump voters in West Virginia admit that a guy from the Northeast is a better advocate of theirs than local Republicans, you know his policies are not open to attack from right-wing populists.

As for purity vs pragmatism: pragmatism is a label for the policies that led to the current state of affairs. It's the policies that led to large-scale devastation across the country. It's not pragmatic to vote for more of the same if it means a continuation of policies that led you into despair. Purity is the label talking heads apply to a principled stance when they don't agree with it, plain and simple. Both labels allow them to distract from discussions about policy substance.

Seriously, he's taking a shit on "purist liberals"?

Remind me again, who was speaking up loud and clear about the danger of running another corporatist against a right-wing populist? Who was that again? Was it the strategists and consultants of the DNC? Was it all the celebrities who were „with her“?

Or was it maybe those liberal idiots whose candidate is, I don't know, the most popular politician in the country? Sanders gets cheers from Trump voters at townhalls in red states, and you're putting the blame for Trump's election at the feet of purist liberals?

Honestly, mate. You want to know what a neoliberal disaster looks like? Look at at the White House. Neoliberal policies are the breeding ground of right-wing populists. You think someone like Trump gets elected because of his convincing policy proposals? Right-wing populists are the answers to „centrist“ policies that enrich the few at the cost of the many. Everyone knows the effects, from widescale poverty, historic inequality, the opioid epidemic, all the way to the two-tiered justice system with fraudsters and torturers running free while not being able to pay a parking tickets gets you jailed.

Too abstract for you, Bill? Then look at Detroit. Look at Cleveland. Is that enough of a visual representation of what a neoliberal disaster looks like?

In this situation, they decided to run a corporatist, with the message „America is already great“. How was that supposed to resonate with the working stiff, Bill? The people whose despair is the main driver behind the opioid epidemic, as Case-Deaton has shows us in such detail. Who had the glorious idea to run exclusively on identity politics and ignore the economic plight of the lower class?

Was that the purist liberals, Bill?

Did the purist liberals run a campaign whose own people, if „Shattered“ contains any truth at all, described it as nothing short of a disaster? Even Clinton's own people didn't seem to know why she was running, and were toying with the idea of just going with „it's her turn“. Seriously, the way they describe Clinton's paranoia and refusal to interact with her own staff makes it sound like her campaign was not much less of a clusterfuck than Trump's presidency, from an organizing point of view.

But yeah, go ahead and blame the purist liberals. And Comey, while you're at it. And Russia. And Jill Stein. And fake news. And WikiLeaks. And sexism. Anything but the DNC and their corporate candidate.

Let me know when you're done, maybe then we can have a proper post-mortem of how the Democrats managed to lose the White House, Congress, most state legislatures and Governorships. And we'll start from the top, because we have a saying in German: „der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her“. Maybe you can get an option to vote against Wall Street, against the war on drugs, against big pharma, against the MIC, and against the destruction of our biosphere. Because you sure as hell didn't have one this time.

I think we may have slightly different terminology.

Neoliberalism is a term I take to mean something much wider, nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism as you would see it (I'm presuming you're American?). It encompasses neoconservatism to mean a purist laissez faire globalist capitalism that seeks to maximize profit without regard to such human weaknesses as morality or emotion as far as is possible and that uses politics as a means to that end or if that fails coercion or worse.

No, I'm not a huge fan of it.

I don't know if I qualify as a purist but I wouldn't have any problem with someone reading digital comics. Hell, I could even see some benefits to the digital format (glances back at the Great Wall of China, in short boxes), but for me, going to the comic store on Fridays is just such an ingrained behavior.
I love both Saga and Black Science, and I have also enjoyed another Image title called East of West.

I never really got into Spawn and Rob Liefeld... well, google Rob Liefeld and the first result is The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings.

It's also kind of ironic that despite Image's entire raison d'etre being "creator's rights", they ended up in a legal battle with Neil Gaiman over a character Gaiman created for McFarlane.

That said, Image are putting out some amazing work these days. If you like comics or sci-fi and you're not reading Saga or Black Science, you're missing out. Seriously, go read them now.

Side note: I know purists probably hate digital comics, and as someone who owns 5 volumes of Ultimate Sandman, I do like a real book, but digital comics are goddamn awesome.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

There's polling that Trump would be neck and neck with Clinton but I think that's baloney and in the general he will get slaughtered since his support base right now is a fairly curated group of the Republican base and in the general he will face tougher questions from the left. The pollsters like Rove already know this and there is some ideas being floated around that the GOP itself may campaign on "vote for a Congress to contain Hilary" rather than even backing Trump.

A big loss would almost certainly trigger some kind of GOP rethink. After McCain's loss the outcome seems to have been to restructure to become more radical and purist, with the Tea Party rise. Since Trump is close enough to a Tea Party candidate the hope is that after a big loss, the Republican party restructures, throws off its extremism and moves towards the center. I think this is inevitable as US youth is highly liberal and minority demographics will eventually determine elections but it may still be some years, maybe a decade before that begins to really matter.

Actually it is called Animation, and Cyrus is a master of it. Although it is probably a mixture -- nobody is a purist anymore.


From Wiki:
Animation
A style and a technique where you imitate film characters being animated by stop motion. The technique of moving rigidly and jerky by tensing muscles and using techniques similar to strobing and the robot makes it appear as if the dancer has been animated frame by frame. This style was heavily inspired by the dynamation films created by Ray Harryhausen, such as The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad (1958).

And if you look at the list of male contestants, you'll see Cyrus having given himself the label of "animation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_%28U.S._season_9%29#Top_20_Finalists

Yeah, I hope this was a pretty heavily scripted encounter to show things off rather than a representation of actual gameplay.

I'd really love to see a mechanic similar to the rewind from Invisible Inc. Purists would probably hate it, but I think turning what is basically save scumming into a limited resource does a lot to smooth out the dice rolls. I think it would be cool to have to agonize over whether you should burn a rewind to try and save that rookie or save it for a more valuable veteran.

Purists be damned, recurring characters are the best! Chicken Lady was a bit much for me after a while, but not as skippable as Buddy Love. Glad they beat head crusher to death. That was classic. Crusher vs. Squisher!

Also a big fan of their art pieces. (Sausages..!)

The point I'm driving at is that this is one of the cases where I think the end justifies the means.

People can take away what they like from watching it. "Aww poor kid", "Man those wrestlers are nice", "What a pack of bastards, exploiting the little bugger"... And that's fine, I'm not trying to tell people how to feel.

But one little guy who was suffering got a bright moment in the sun. I don't care if they go full idiot and publicise the shit out of it because it was worth it. Hell, I'd be pleased if self interest caused more people to be "altruistic" to high note themselves. It's the core of things like Ronald McDonald house, which is a PR exercise in it's purist form and yet still helps.

And if they hadn't publicised it, being an Australian who doesn't actually watch much wrestling, I probably wouldn't have heard of it at all.

You talk like Iran is a person. Last time I checked it was a country which, like most countries contains a diverse mix of beliefs and personalities.

Your not entirely wrong to suggest that Iran is ruled by people who appear to espouse the hard-line apocalyptic interpretation of Islam in much the same way as significant aspects of the US and Israeli ruling classes are into the Zionist/revelations side of Christianity and Judaism.

And for what it's worth a really serious Christian, Muslim or Jew would take that position. Why would you take a half arsed attitude if you truly believe our eternal souls are at stake!!!

But crucially, not everyone is an extremist. In fact most people aren't extremists they are just conformists. Iran is no different and the uprising a few years ago was mostly fuelled by the younger generation rebelling against the oppressive theocracy you are referring to.

There is a purist aspect to all Abrahamist religions that will never be appeased but Iran & by extension Islam is only one of the three pillars (of satan) and much like has happened in the west the rise of free communication via the internet etc. is causing to to start to be outgrown by its people.

In short: there are nutters (such as yourself) on both sides and not every (or even perhaps most) Iranians hate the west just like not all westerners hate Iran. Don't buy into the us vs them propaganda, there is a 3rd side here and its not restricted by nationality or culture, nor does it celebrate death over life. Only knowledge, evolution and temperance


You all seem dangerously delusional far as I can tell. Unless the basic concept of "I might be totally wrong about all this" isn't built into your religion/belief system you can go and get stuffed....(and you will be as a relic/warning to the kids of the future)

same thought-Part of the overwhelming appeal of this work-Purists' agree, analog shall NEVER lose her cutting edge!

She's had martial training, you can tell from her form-She twirls the long staff well enough, has a well-oiled sense of her center, quite grounded-BUT, if she wants to be a Ninja she's needs to be able to scale vertical obstacles with only the texture of the stone and the mortar seams to hold on to.

the last 3 comments....Remember Bruce Lee? He was taught by the best (IpMan-Wing Chun styles) and his version of martial arts was an amalgam of several styles. He called it Jeet Kune Do and the Chinese purists were saying the same thing about his hybridized, eclectic form.

Y'all remember Bruce Lee right?

This chick would throttle most posers.

@Shepppard I agree whole heartedly.

Idk what she's talking about "processed peanut butter will make your sandwich oily and gross"
ANY time I've tried the 'All Natural!' crap I'm always having to deal with that sick layer of oil on top every time I want to get some peanut butter love.

Furthermore, wtf is wrong with these people and the additions to the PBnJ to jazz it up? I can see cinnimon, honey (possibly), bananas, etc. But, fuck, can you even still call it a PBnJ when it's got sriracha and chives on it? (sick)

On another note,
Being a huge fan of peanut butter myself, I would like to whole heartedly reccommend the Omega-3 Jiff peanut butter that comes in the jar with the green lid. I bought it originally b/c I wanted to be healthy but it's hands down THE best peanut butter I've ever had and I've continued to buy it over the past year or two b/c I love the taste compared with other peanut butters I've tried.

EDIT: I've grilled my PBnJ's before, it's okay from time to time, but purists will call it sacrileg!