I find her to be heinous and gruesome.
This whole interview was bias and pre-planned.
This is fake manufactured news intended to sway an argument without presenting any facts. Does anyone even stop to wonder if she is creditable? Why does she no longer work there? Was she let go, and now is vindictive? She obviously has pre-planned her responses, just as much as the questioning is.
#HowToLeadAConversaionWhereYouWantItToGo.

I'm amazed time and again that they just don't seem to get it. You keep putting forth corporate shill Democrats that practically everyone can see a mile away and you will not win. Sure there are other factors involved as well, but it is clear to me that everyone is no longer swayed by the smooth talking politician. We want change. We want to give government a swift kick in the ass. Unfortunately a lot of those hungry voters were willing to chance it with a child like buffoon. I like some things that Maher says, but he has no idea what the people want.

I miss the days when reason held more sway.

Well there is a difference, generally people performing islamic terrorism are normal people who have been radicalised through their religion.
Where as the shooters in the US tend to have mental issues, are criminals, etc. So you have to wonder, what kind of religion is it, that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues.

Saying that "they aren't the only people to be bad" is really dishonest and helps nobody. Especially those that need it the most, and it just gives the right-wingers more fuel - that is the reason why Trump is the president now. The left being dishonest, and because they don't acknowledge the facts. Where as the right simply don't understand facts in general lol.

As soon as the left start becoming more honest, acknowledge the facts then the far right will quiet down again. There will always be a few far right nutters, but not enough to sway the vote like has just happened.

While I agree, being on RT does not mean the story is falsified, but it does mean you can't assume it's not.

When propaganda machines masquerade as news, you're better off just ignoring them, even though they will likely tell the truth every now and then. The issue is you can't tell, without extraordinary investigation, which is real reporting and which is pure propaganda, and which is a mixture. What this means is most people who get their news from these organizations will be constantly misinformed and less knowledgeable about the actual facts, having been duped by propagandists.

No reputable reporter would tarnish their reputation by joining one of these lie factories, IMO. That Chris Hedges ended up here means he made a HUGE mistake somewhere and is no longer working as an actual reporter but instead has become a purveyor of biased opinion.

What I think swayed tens of thousands of voters was the reporting of the underhanded collusion between Clinton and the DNC. Most didn't vote for Trump, they didn't vote for president at all, or went 3rd party.

What happened in 2001-2002 was the administration cherry picked and twisted intelligence to make a case for war against a country that had not attacked us, the intelligence community was not on board for the most part, and many declassified reports indicate they were not at all confident about WMD's or them having any hand in 9/11, contrary to the administrations public and zealous position at the time.....but that is why it is relevant. Trump has shown he'll take his own advice and viewpoint over intelligence professionals, so the idea that he'll lie about, twist, and ignore intelligence reports is relevant....he's already done so and he's not even president yet.

So science rapists can be swayed by pretty faces so much that they have to remind each other to be wary?

Jeez, why didn't anyone say so. Let's hire women with PhDs to communicate science globally!

You did not listen? How could you have heard anything? Main stream media swayed its followers into a false bliss of an easy sure thing Clinton win.


The other 1/2 of the county listen to facts. no pay increase in years, insurance premiums hikes, illegals being send back time and time again, some even committing violent crimes and zero, zilch happens to them. Jobs leaving the country left and right. Buying power of the dollar diminishing. Falsely reported employment rate and low job creation of any presidency.

And then you have all the Hillary shit.


But hey its over. The people have spoken, A historic landslide. A mandate from the people showing their disgrace towards the political establishment.

Anybody who says they are a Sanders person and votes for anyone other than Clinton is a damn fool.

You think Sanders is so great? You think he is a progressive and our best hope?

THEN FUCKING VOTE FOR CLINTON. Sanders knows how politics works. He knows that there has been progress made on progressive issues. And he has explicitly stated that if you want progressive values to hold sway in this country, YOU MUST VOTE FOR CLINTON.

So do what you say -- vote your conscience. And vote for Clinton.

Because if Trump wins? I swear, I WILL come to your house and personally beat the crap out of you. And take your weed.

Bernie and Trump are similarly attractive to disenfranchised, frustrated people who want change. The difference is in their perspective and tactics.

Bernie attracts people who believe the country has been stolen by the wealthy and want a more egalitarian society.

Trump appeals to people who are given to fear, anger and violence.

The problem is that a segment of the conservative movement found it beneficial to stoke that anger and fear in people to win votes and then that fire got away from them. Trump's mantra, "you're screwed and I'm the only one who can save you", is the same one that got Bush Jr. elected. It's the same message that made Fox news the most watched news channel on cable. People with money and conservative economic beliefs have used that message for decades to consolidate their power and make more money. They've used it to get scared and angry people to vote against their own best interest. Trump is the predictable, but somehow shocking, natural result of that strategy.

Why do democrats struggle to get a majority of people to vote for policies that are consistently more fiscally responsible and in the interest of the majority of voters? Because there will always be a segment of scared, angry people who can swayed by anyone willing to give them an outlet for their hatred.

The thing about this, Dan, is that to some degree both Bernie and Trump alienate a lot of their party's base. Just like you have a lot of undecided republicans, I think Bernie would have caused a lot of undecided democrats. Similarly, of course, they dislodge a lot of the opposition and in particular people angry with the current system. This just causes a lot more free movement, which i think is a good thing in principle.

The daily ups-and-downs that are the curse of an election cycle would sway this mass in either direction. As much as I love Bernie, I very much doubt he'd be the landslide some people seem to think.

alcom says...
@kingmob The right-wing conspiracy of convenience says that the data has been adjusted to heighten the urgency and panic and perpetuate their scientific fraud. This is a misunderstanding of flux adjustments that used to be made to climate models in the 90's and early in the 00's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Flux_buffering

Recent improvements in modelling equations mean that they no longer rely on flux adjustments, but hearing that they had to made adjustments at all sounds sketch.

Because the "hockey-stick" model was an overshoot based on the peak in 1998, deniers tend to either:

a) Argue that the "warming hiatus" between 1998 and 2013 disproves AGW theory. This fallacy disproved itself in the last 2+ years as global surface and ocean temperatures have exceeded the 1998 record year on year.
or:
b) Attempt to discredit scientists arguing that their own funding depends on the alarming data that they publish. Far-right conservatives continue to demonize scientists as a cabal of billionaires working in concert to sway public opinion. If that was true, then the whole hiatus period sure didn't help their cause, but the graph hasn't moved.

This is sound science, and denialism is collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit. At the time of posting, NOAA said that July 2016 also marked the 15th consecutive warmest month on record for the globe. That is the longest stretch of months in a row that a global temperature record has been set in their dataset.

@kingmob The right-wing conspiracy of convenience says that the data has been adjusted to heighten the urgency and panic and perpetuate their scientific fraud. This is a misunderstanding of flux adjustments that used to be made to climate models in the 90's and early in the 00's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Flux_buffering

Recent improvements in modelling equations mean that they no longer rely on flux adjustments, but hearing that they had to made adjustments at all sounds sketch.

Because the "hockey-stick" model was an overshoot based on the peak in 1998, deniers tend to either:

a) Argue that the "warming hiatus" between 1998 and 2013 disproves AGW theory. This fallacy disproved itself in the last 2+ years as global surface and ocean temperatures have exceeded the 1998 record year on year.
or:
b) Attempt to discredit scientists arguing that their own funding depends on the alarming data that they publish. Far-right conservatives continue to demonize scientists as a cabal of billionaires working in concert to sway public opinion. If that was true, then the whole hiatus period sure didn't help their cause, but the graph hasn't moved.

This is sound science, and denialism is collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit. At the time of posting, NOAA said that July 2016 also marked the 15th consecutive warmest month on record for the globe. That is the longest stretch of months in a row that a global temperature record has been set in their dataset.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

*quality rant, excellent points. Please be this loud or louder on the convention floor, Ms Stauber.
*promote

The only thing that Sanders endorsing Clinton did was make his supporters disappointed in him, it didn't sway his supporters, especially now that the cat's out of the bag.