But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

That was really interesting.
I can speak some very basic high school level french.

Although I haven't spoken it in many years, when I was in Italy last year, I found I could read almost anything I needed to in Italian (i.e. basic things like signs, menus, descriptions on paintings).

And even though, French and Spanish are less closely related, I found written Spanish was relatively easy to understand too.

Still haven't mastered kiwi yet.

Wonderfully spoken, poignant and on-point.

Well spoken, needs more attention.

As somebody who doesn't dance, I must say I'm in awe of this dancing. A perfect bodily expression of spoken word.

Lin-Manuels spoken word at the end(19:00) was good stuff.

Lin-Manuel Miranda Performs from Hamilton which Oliver references

I find sentences that have two 'that's in them annoying. It's annoying that that works that way.

My proposition is to create a new single word, thithat, which has the same meaning as two that's next to eachother. I pronounce it that way when I'm speaking. Two that's in a row doesn't seem odd when spoken, only when written down. Therefore: thithtat. It won't be annoying anymore thithat works that way.

ed: And yes I know, you can just use one 'that' but that's not often done when speaking.

ed2: Dammit. The first usage in history of the word thitthat, and I spelled it wrong.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

It was meant to be shocking for his father I think...thus the simple word "shock" that's how I took it to mean...Now title is fixed...I just thought he was really talented and well spoken..it's why I shared it.

My thing is -- would you be so admiring of this behavior if you liked the person being yelled at?

Because sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

She could have SPOKEN to power. She chose to YELL to power.

And I agree with everything she said. I just don't think it helps our society to disagree with each other like this.

It certainly isn't going to win over hearts and minds. This is like shock and awe by George W. Feels good, feels like you have power. But you aren't doing anything to change things. In fact, it can make things worse, drive us further apart.

If she had just spoken with clarity. Cut him to ribbons with clarity.

I like it, I just can't get over the MANY mispronunciations. I have such a hard time taking "eagle-tarians" seriously. I don't hear any specific accents that lead me to believe English isn't the Narrator's first language... I just get the feeling that the Narrator only knows english from reading it, not from hearing it spoken.

Despite my pedantry getting in the way, I still like it. The narrator doesn't try to say "Everything is great" or "Everything is terrible"... mainly pointing out how the Star Trek canon is a tapestry of many different, real-world philosophies. Nothing ground-breaking or eye-opening, and it could be 30 minutes, but still good.

The linked article says that it was indeed:

Municipal Services Minister Meegan Fitzharris said the driver would be counselled and a note placed on his file.

"The footage was sent to the driver's depot manager who has interviewed and spoken with the driver and reviewed CCTV footage from the bus," she said.

"The investigation is now complete.

"ACTION will send an apology to the cyclist."

Nope, the Great Ted hath Spoken:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gey-ZG95Q4g

There are no chicks with dicks only guys with tits

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.

@bobknight33
you know bob,i owe you an apology.
i shouldnt have told you "fuck you" when my problem was with the video,and i wrongly conflated you with this video.

that being said,i still stand by my feelings of "fuck this video".

i struggle with people who have this binary view of politics.
just because i criticized the lies and deception of the republican party does not automatically translate me to promoting or defending democratic practices,because BOTH parties manipulate the body politic while at the very same fuck them over.

the two party duopoly are just different faces of the same coin.both have been purchased to serve the interests of:wall street,big business,bankers and the military.

i have never subscribed to either party.i judge on individual merit and a case by case basis.so when you call me a liberal i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

do i hold some liberal views? yes.
do i hold some conservative? yep.

but so dont you bob,we ALL do.
of course that is not the dynamic that is shoved down our throat every goddamn day.that somehow our politics can be reduced down to this over-simplified,and overly basic dichotomy.

but nobody has such a simpleton,and almost childish politics.as humans we are pretty complex is our understandings,feelings and desires.it is those complexities that influences our politics and how we feel things should be as a society.

i am a libertarian socialist (anrcho-syndacalist).
which is why you may see me post videos that address the corruption in politics,in our economy,in our foreign policy.the hypocrisy of politicians espousing that "feel your pain" language,while they funnel public funds to their criminal friends on wall street...and point to the food stamp recipient,or immigrant and state..with zero sense of irony..THERE,that is your problem.

my politics is the reason why i may post video criticizing and ridiculing ultra-right wing politicians attempting to legislate "proper" and "moral" behavior,because they pretend they have some relationship with god,and god spoke to them.

but also why i will post videos criticizing and ridiculing the extreme left.who seek to legislate "harmful" or "offensive" speech,because they seek to control language.as if THEY are the true moral arbiters of human interaction.

so i do not necessarily disagree with you when you point to the democrats hypocrisy in regards to poor folk.that they use the language of empathy and compassion,and then enact legislation that is entirely bereft of compassion and empathy,but BOTH parties do this!

bill clinton was incredibly detrimental to the poor and working poor and made the job of digging out of poverty damn near impossible.

you may identify with republican ideology,and that is not a bad thing.republican base ideology may be a tad more pro-business,but it also recognizes that the governments job is to protect the people from fraud and over-reach from those businesses.original republican ideology was for limited government,and fiscal responsibility.which USED to translate to anti-war and dismissing the military when it was no longer needed.

i could go on.

i could also point out that democrats USED to be more hawkish and far more involved in addressing the concerns of the working man.

but look at the political landscape of today.
both of these parties are nothing even close to representing their original ideals.they are solely and totally beholden to big monied interests.

our republic has become a plutocracy,run by the plutocrats and oligarchs.

so when you delineate the argument by republican/democrat i simply do not see this play out in reality.

we might as well be arguing who is the better fottball team,because thats what american politics has become.bread and circuses and cheerleading for our "team".

it is the height of absurdity.american politics has become absurd.

as for you not seeing this for being racist.
i dont know what i can say to remove your blinders.
this video is textbook racist.
we have "black face"
we have over-generalizations.
we have ridicule and assumption based solely on skin color.

calling this video racist is a non-controversial assertion.

and you cant promote it out of discard.
the sift has spoken.you can disagree,but that wont change the fact that this video is in the discard bin.

anyways,sorry for telling you to fuck off.
i just found this video offensive,but i dont find YOU offensive.confusing at times,but not offensive.