SG is a good person, so I'm happy to defend him. There are actually many good people here. But Stephen is the wrong person to talk about others being ghoulish, considering he's a Pizzagater http://imgur.com/a/KgR3n

You're one of the most level-headed, pleasant people here. Stephen has a history of throwing tantrums and, worse, now he's woke. You made a benign point, don't sweat it.

cw: uses a figure from Arabic mythology as a pejorative, Islamophobia, white supremacy

28% of Democrats believe Pizzagate is "definitely" or "probably" true. Must be those ironic Hillary supporters, right?
http://nymag.com/daily/inte…

How many of those 14% are overlapping Bernie supporters and leftists?

It was also reasonable to ask liberals to vote against Trump.

aka "let me work backwards to figure out how this is the media/establishment liberals' fault", while the dossier keeps getting corroborated and Russian officials keep dying.

How can we be as cool as you Narwhal

Left Twitter is predictably losing it. Ask them what the actual differences are between Perez and Ellison.

That was my point. That the same disaffection keeps the Daves away from the polls.

You're describing a lot of people on the left, a lot of people on this site for that matter. On the other side, white evangelicals made up 26% of all voters despite being a shrinking segment of the population. Say what you will about them but despite also feeling disaffected, angry, frustrated and all those other…

How heartwarming, I have united in opposition to me two sides of a bitter neoliberal/liberal vs. communist divide that lasted all of 2016 and had the latter feeling shamed and battered, mostly by SBT, for merely supporting Bernie.

It should be easy for you to show how it's an unhinged conspiracy, so do that. Show how the mention of Bill Clinton means what you think it does. You even agree this is SOP for Russia so you're agreeing with Garland. This is a very odd stand.

You forgot to mention Greenwald and Cheney also partners in Putin's grand conspiracy. In your eagerness to argue you ended up with the tinfoil hat.

For the third time, that's not his point. He's pointing to opportunism, something now accepted as fact by the MSM and IC.

The "narrative": Russia as a humiliated former power but with an unparalleled spy apparatus saw festering divisions in America and struck when they had the chance after having already cultivated Trump for years. What is controversial about this? Garland clearly says we did it to ourselves. Alex Jones?

I understand, you have to shoot the messenger because it's me, but nothing there hasn't also been corroborated or surmised by journos and IC. Garland is not laying out a conspiracy but a series of independent forces that led to the current state. Nothing remotely controversial about it. Merely just pointing to two…

https://twitter.com/ericgar… - truer by the day
https://twitter.com/jayrose… - check

Figures that upon being gifted something as amazing as going back in time to change history you would vote for someone just as moronic as Trump. This is the problem.

Who said that? She did say she preferred Trump to Hillary and that a fear of Trump wasn't enough to vote for Hillary, which was a view shared by millions apparently, and that obviously led to Trump winning. I hope those people enjoy the next four years of tearing down the "status quo".