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.

I want to like these, as I enjoy the concept, but find the guy's presentations are always both deceptive and entirely superficial.

'Microscope from Scratch! Watch as I stumble through making a glass-like substance again in a way that is so incredibly ass-backwards its surprising I don't burn down my garage, then watch me copy a paper microscope with paper I technically made using a bunch of equipment other people let me use, then finally watch me use glass (which I purchased and nearly failed at making into simple beads) in that microscope to eventually show you a ridiculously fuzzy image of a stained microscope slide I also purchased. Thanks patreons!'

Good thing as I state in my profile, I live in the State of Superposistion!

(I'm moving to my impenetrable black cube after this made of substance "x", so don't bother replying)....

I cant find any substance in any of Milo. Capable troll, but the confrontation is not an argument, just an exchange of insults.

I find him so unpleasant to watch and listen to, that it makes him fascinating somehow. He is Bruno in a way, a contorted persona meant to catch peoples attention.

If we are going to start pointing fingers at countries, almost every single country in the world has used immigrant labor to keep itself functional. You can't single out the USA for relying on it, and as I mentioned, the USA is far from being the only country starting to realize that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives.

I have never hired an illegal. It is possible that they US government should increase work visas, I would not care as long as people were here legally. This also isn't 'The Jungle', I am pretty sure that Upton Sinclair would laugh if you compared the living conditions and quality of life that our current immigrants have compared to then.

I disagree with your example, this is not a situation where the people did not have other options. They could have applied to come here legally, choosing not to do so because it is far easier to ignore the law does not make them addicts to a chemical substance.

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

"As it is, Not as we would like it to be"

When we have a desire or expectation on what we want or how things should go, but it does not turn out the way we 'hoped' or 'wanted' (desire), then we loose the balance of our mind.
Desire is based on illusion, we desire (hope) something that has yet to happen and we think about how perfect it would be 'if', yet when that 'if' turns out to be something we did not expect, intend or desire, then we become agitated, sad or depressed that it did not transpire the way we thought it would be. We then take that agitation and we try to share it with others. We don't like to feel the way we are feeling, so we express it to others, spreading the drama. Most people take on the agitation of the one with agitation and become emotional in some way to either commiserate with them or it brings up our own internal agitations about so many things, that we then become embattled with the one that is agitated. Then the fire that is inside is being spread to each other and sometimes it gets bigger and keeps spreading to those around the ones that are agitated. Then it keeps growing and we have a tendency to hold on to that agitation from moments past or days, weeks or years past and it keeps building. It becomes a habit pattern and we keep repeating the same process because we are consumed with it.
But we all know that the only thing that puts out a fire is water. Water is the cooling substance to quench the fires lust to consume. It is the same way with human beings, water (calm cool words or actions) can help diffuse oneself or others.
When we are agitated we lose our self-awareness and travel down the path that our sensations or emotions are taking us. We in essence lose control, we allow ourselves or others to guide us down a path that is never helpful to any situation.
But there are many paths to change that habit pattern within ourselves and gain mastery over our minds and change the habit of allowing ourselves to lose our equanimity.
Science has proven that no one can make you feel a certain way, or make you do anything. Yet we still have a habit of blaming others for our agitation or sadness, or even praise others for making ourselves happy. Yet we are the only ones that can make ourselves happy or sad. We have the ability to accept things as they truly are be it 'bad' or 'good' and be OK with it. Why do we cry when the milk has spilt? It has spilt, crying or any other emotion over that reality is not going to make the milk un-spill. Cleaning it up and learning or teaching on not to have the milk spill again and moving on from that moment is the most important thing.
We are incredible beings with so much power and beauty. To be with ourselves and learn from within our own beings is so important and the key to dealing with the world around us.
So yes, hope can be a very dangerous thing when that hope consumes us to the point of anger and depression when that hope it not fulfilled.
We do not have any control over how things transpire outside of ourselves, but we do have the ability to master ourselves so we can be mindful to the ever changing world when our hopes are not fulfilled. As we grow we learn not to have so many expectations (hopes), but allow life to unfold around us and 'Act' to any situation instead of 'React' with emotion. When we Act, we start to become aware instead of becoming blurred when we are reacting with unawareness.

'Be well on your journey, May Truth and Awareness be your guide'

What significance does any horrifically addictive substance give anyone?

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.

Thanks Rad. I would still imply that there IS a purpose to the refrigerator angle and "rant" form rather than "report" form. The opinion is strong but the reporting is meh.

Glen Greenwald is weak. A journalist should only breach privacy if there is a crime or significant damage to "public interest" involved (oversimplified). What is the crime?

Lee Fang - I see his point on banks and fracking and being a two-faced liar. I understand how exposing this is worthwhile to hurt Hillary. I just see this as repeating the words "email scandal" ad nauseam without enough substance.

You cant read your neighbors mail, hoping to prove they killed someone, and then inform the public that the mail proves they are an unpleasant person.

The claim "if someone had stolen the e-mails sooner she might have lost to Bernie" is just plain funny.

yeah, it honestly seems like his depression bubbled to the surface in this interview. Mom has emphysema, lonely and reckless with substances. Austin might be a good move for him.

I did the "master cleanse" once for about a week. After that I felt like I was doing more harm then anything beneficial.

The most important thing is a healthy diet. The past month I have literary been detoxing.... really, I should have gone to rehab - that is how bad my alcohol problem has been The key to my success (10+ years of drinking 5+ drinks -pretty much every single day) - I started drinking two Kombucha's a day. There is no real evidence that Kombucha has health benefits (it even contains a small amount of alcohol). But, it has been a fine replacement for alcohol and has worked for me, it also doesn't contain many calories, so I've been sober, feeling good, losing a little weight and probably saving some money. It may be a "pseudo-scientific" product, but it's way better than any of the alternatives, as the fermented tea is a little like having an actual drink.

Another detox product is a herb called Kratom. This can be used in place of an alcohol or opiate addiction to overcome sometimes deadly withdrawal symptoms. Some people in the medical profession even use it for their aches & pains as they do not want to be on pharmaceutical drugs... but the DEA is going to be scheduling it as a Schedule I drug. Fucking... idiots....

sign the peitiion: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance

Good luck in your quest for supreme enlightenment. For only the enlightened may consume condensed light. Until then you're stuck eating and drinking barbarian substances with the rest of us heathens, you unenlightened bastard.

Here's the petition he mentioned.

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.