Um...who is this tool?
"All the Russia stuff is fake news, I mean, is it really news that Russia's been trying to hack into our election?" .... That means you are admitting it's REAL news, just not new or surprising news. Verifying or debunking expectations is what the news is for, in part.

No direct link proven in the publicly released report (we don't know what's in the classified report) is not the same as no evidence. Multiple intelligence agencies, not democrats, issued an unprecedented joint report saying exactly what the title says they did. Note, he won't tell you what the middle of the story is...only points out two seemingly contradictory (if you don't read them closely) sentences (omitting the rest of the report).

Do you know that Trump didn't even let the FBI look at his servers, international contracts, business contacts, international contractual obligations and holdings, or even let the USA look at his taxes, and now says he won't ever release them even though he promised he would. Why do you think that is?

Here's the thing. If all his past "fuckups" as you put it were supposed to completely discredit him as a canidate, why the hell did the following happen:

a) Be allowed to Run
b) Get nominated for the Republican nomination
c) Win the Election

We knew all the shit in his past, but you know what? He was still voted in not by fellow Republican politicians, but the people who saw that Trump could do what the people in DC can't do. That's one thing you, I and everyone else needs to accept. If this was "Such an issue that should have disqualified him from running and instead he should be in Jail," Why is he not in jail? Legit question because whatever that you might respond to that could be the same reasons why people feel like Hillary should be in Jail but still isn't.

"Republicans would be embarrassed to admit they'd backed a candidate that spent more of his first four years in jail than in the office. It would blow up the party and they're too self-centered to do that."

What's there to be embarrassed about? They never supported Trump to begin with! If it was a case where they were singing his praises, then the "grab them by the pussy video" came up, that would be embarrassing. Instead, they didn't show their support for Trump and then when that video came up, those who didn't support Trump basically doubled down on their "No supporting Trump."

The Republicans aren't going to act all "cheerful" now that Trump has won. They are cautious as all hell now more than ever. Even Paul Ryan calls Trump's win the "Most unprecedented win in the history of our country." The Republican party already strapped on the suicide vest the moment Trump accepted the nomination, and that vest isn't going to come off just because he won. They are going to watch him like a hawk and impeach him the moment he screws up. Impeaching Trump for if he screws up is not the same as "the party blowing up," but if Trump makes constant failed policies and they decide to stand by Trump, that is just watching the boat sink with all passengers on board.

Trump is not your average politician. As such we can't assume that should action be taken against Trump, that won't be average either.

What he needs to do now is prove that the trust that has been to put him by the people was well placed and that he will do the things he promised to do. All what the Republicans can do is just watch him carefully.

Sorry for the wall of text, but the only reason why I'm infuriated is that people honestly think we're turning into a fascism when really it would be easy to prevent such things from happening. Especially if there was no party loyalty to begin with.

This is known as putting the cart before the horse.

We are living in a time of unprecedented propaganda and it really saddens me. Good people can give their blessing to atrocities and their only mistake was listening to major news outlets. I can't get angry at anyone for thinking like this anymore, i just despair that we've allowed ourselves to become intellectual cattle.

For a moment, assume for the sake of argument that Assange is right. Next round of emails gets released, there's damning evidence of criminal actions or other behavior that are sufficient to arrest or at least force Hillary to drop out of the race. What would happen if that does come to pass?

Would the Democrat party be able to name Bernie as their candidate, since he got the second highest number of delegates? He has already endorsed Clinton and officially returned to being an Independent instead of a Democrat (or at least says that he would return to the Senate as an Independent). In light of that, would they pass the torch to Tim Kaine as Hillary's VP pick?

It's all pretty weird and unprecedented. I can only think of the Nixon resignation as setting any sort of example; but maybe there have been Governor candidates disqualified due to criminal activity in the middle of a race before?

I must say, it seems to me that it would almost be a blessing for the Democrat party if it *does* come true and they revert to Sanders for the nominee. I tend to think he'd easily beat Trump in the general election (although having endorsed Hillary could be damaging), and we'd all have the benefit of having someone with actually positive favorability ratings on the ballot...

Probably all wishful thinking on my part as a Sanders fan. But still interesting to contemplate.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

I agree with everything you said except that he wasn't right.
He didn't say she's the nominee, he said she has all the votes she needs to win the nomination at the convention, baring something disqualifying her before then or all the super delegates deciding to completely thwart the will of the people and vote for Sanders, contrary to their current declarations. That is correct. It's not 100% "over", but something drastic and fairly unprecedented would be required to switch the outcome at this point.

How about tell them that if they live in a state that has yet to vote in the primary, they should not let the outrageous and unprecedented lies, irregularities, the clear 'fix' being perpetrated by the DNC, and attempts to dissuade or actually stop them from voting keep them from the polls on Primary day, and vote for Sanders, otherwise you are the one helping Trump become president. A Clinton candidacy means a Trump presidency, she's now well behind Trump in national polls, and his numbers are rising while hers are falling.
A vote for Clinton makes you responsible for Trump. A push for Clinton makes you responsible for Trump. A vote and support for Sanders makes you the only responsible party in the election. That simple.

Spoilers do follow:

What bugged me most was that as a last ditch attempt to save humanity, the NASA successors in the film decided to spend all their time and resources on sending first scouts, then hopefully colonists through an unprecedented wormhole, in the hopes that a suitably survivable planet might be found on the other side. To judge by the film, a lifeless, icy waste without a breathable atmosphere was considered a decent candidate.

So against that background, we come back from the wormhole to a city-sized space station, complete with lawns and baseball.

Why all the trouble? With that level of tech apparently within reasonable reach, why not at least consider colonizing a planet in our own solar system? Why risk everything on a complete unknown?

I definitely agree with you on the democracy point - my whole post was mostly an attempt to explain what I perceive to be the main factors that drive Israeli democracy toward the oppression we see over the Palestinians. The nutters on the hilltop have very little influence on this drive, but the combined forces of Jewish nationalism and protective insulation go a long way toward making these policies successful in Israel's free and democratic society.

I guess, then, in an extremely limited respect I agree with you on the 4th reich thing just because of the comparison between complacent German citizens who were only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Jewish suffering and Jews who are only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Palestinian suffering.

That being said, using the term "Fourth Reich" doesn't illuminate this sort of nuance and instead it accuses Israel of many extremes of which it is not guilty. For example Nazi Germany was guilty of a truly unprecedented campaign to methodically exterminate vast populations based on their ethnicity, and they were literally bent on world domination - I have many harsh criticisms for Israel, but if you think that Israel's conduct can be reasonably compared to that then you are delusional.

In a similar vein, while I do think that Gaza in many ways is the world's largest prison, it is not in any way comparable to Nazi concentration camps. I would much rather live in present day Gaza than be in a Nazi concentration camp, for one, and secondly I think that Israel's policy towards Gaza can better be described as one of control and marginalization, whereas the Nazi's goals with concentration camps was straight up efficient extermination.

So long story short, don't fall prey to the "reductio ad hitlerum" fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) and make a more careful comparison between Israel's and Nazi Germany's respective civilian populations and I'd be more inclined to agree with your point.

I read your first post... and your second which for the most part was like reading the first one again, although without the zeal for rapid executions. Speaking of replying and not reading...

Never did get an answer to how many innocent people you'd be willing to sacrifice to see that "justice' was enacted that much faster?.

What your argument has lacked in its entirety is any sort of facts beyond what you seem supremely confident would work.

Correct me where i'm wrong... i'm genuinely asking here... Lets get the whole list of what exactly your advocating... as the solution to solving the prison problem.

Rapid executions... i'm assuming some kind of limit to appeals and time to issue them? (despite over 140 people being exonerated since 1973)

Dramatic increase in government surveillance... Because you know... its not like a right to privacy was one of the founding principles of this country.

Forced Sterilizations?... I'm really curious how else you'd enforce your breeding policy... or would you simply lockup the parents if they didn't meet the criteria you think appropriate, and had a child anyway? May fine them into oblivion?

Dramatically stricter sentencing?.. because lets be honest those jaywalkers have had it too easy for too long!... guessing this means you'd be advocating dramatic bulding projects... more prisons... more guards... MUCH more from the sounds of it. I'm sure companies like Geo Group would LOVE to provide that service... they're doing just awesome so far!...

And finally prison conditions... despite it being extraordinarily expensive to warehouse people for profit like we are... Doing just a TERRIBLE job of doing it and already sending an unprecedented number of people to prison... you want more.. because THAT will deter crime.

You want conditions to be 'adequate' yes? Indoor-plumbing... clean water... etc... just not TOO adequate lest they get to comfortable at 'casa de prison' system and never want to leave!...So things like AC or 'clean food' might be optional?... and of course... they should be billed for any treatment?.. .maybe have to 'work off the cost'?

Did i miss anything?

When your country starts incarcerating its citizens at an enormous rate, unprecedented in the world, dwarfing that of a country like China, yeah i can't imagine where those comparisons would come from.

I want a number... You feel so strongly about this give me a god damn number... how many innocent people should be executed to sate your desire for rapid executions?... How many each yer?... 5? 10? 20?... Of course we'll never really know will we.

Maybe you should actually watch the video... or i don't know spend 10 minutes on google... If your concerned about prisoners getting free health care or *gasp* free food!!!! Well your in fucking luck!... because increasingly they aren't getting any of either... Shelter???? don't count on it...

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140424-the-crime-of-un-airconditioned-texas-prisons.ece

WTF am i wasting my time discussing this with a guy advocating a police state and as far as i can tell medieval era punishments...

Do you actually work for Geo Group?... be honest you do don't ya.

Important context: this was the first trial, and it only worked on one of the two volunteers. Granted, a 50% survival rate is waaaay better than 0%, but this is not a definitive solution yet. The common view from the medical world on this research for the time being seems to be: "cautiously optimistic".

More info @ The Washington Post.

@RedSky

I'd like to know how you expect to quintuple the availability of every vital resource in the next 50-100 years while somehow reducing the environmental impact of that necessary increase to what you acknowledge needs to be less than the present level. This is supernatural thinking. Corporations don't pollute, incidentally, the fundamental structure of our global society pollutes; which would be no problem whatsoever if there were fewer of us.

It's fine if you'd prefer to just keep the majority of the world in mediaeval poverty, or alternatively impoverish everyone equally; colossally immoral, but by contrast actually physically possible.

Our success as an organism has been implicitly tied to energy availability for our entire history. The bubble of economic and technological advancement we've ridden since the industrial revolution is driven by unprecedented access to energy in the form of irreplaceable fossil fuels. It requires continual investment of energy to maintain. The practical exploitability of wind, solar, wave, geothermal and hydroelectric sources combined doesn't come close, not even close to the demand we'll place on them with population on the scale you're quite comfortable to allow. Fissile materials are limited and similarly irreplaceable; we've been steadily failing to develop fusion power for sixty years.

The innovation of new sources of energy is not guaranteed, unless you have some new breakthrough in physics you'd like to share? Efficiency gains are strictly limited.

If you think we'll have the ability to support billions of people on a sustainable basis at some time in the future, well great, LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT ABILITY BEFORE WE BET EVERYTHING ON IT.

@Jinx To me it's quite obvious that Phelps has had the opposite effect that he intended to have. People weren't willing to see themselves side with or compared to such an extremist and he gave ammo to those who said it's crazy to hate gays.

The Gay Rights movement is unprecedented in our countries history for how fast it is moving and achieving real results. You need to take a step back and recognize that fact, it's moving at a blistering pace. This is largely because of past movements which have laid the groundwork and the civilizing effect of the late 60s early 70s.

You can cite Russia all you want I don't care about Russia. I'm talking about the United States because this post is about a United States pundit/politician. If you want to discuss Russia fine but it should be on a video about Gay Rights in Russia.

We don't make the news because we are small potatoes. And the problems won't show up until next summer.

California has been robbing water from all over for years. I find it particularly galling that this decades old thievery is just now getting more wide notice. I lived down there 30 years ago, and it was a problem then.

We don't get that much snow, really, not at sea level. But the Olympic Mountains usually get covered up -- and that is our water source. Usually.

We'll get maybe one really good snow every year and a half. Last year, it snowed three days in a row -- unprecedented. And now we get none.

Hence the "half."

Those who cross country ski are hungry for it. They'll ski in ankle deep snow!