Don't be silly Penny. The guy who's willing to sign this bill into law: http://www.thedailybeast.co… doesn't discriminate against LGBT people! He held a flag for Pete's sake! What more do you want him to do?

I agree with you that having a substantive debate with a true believer could be useful. Milo isn't a true believer and for all that he likes to style himself as substantive, Maher's not the person to be hosting that debate. Trolls don't need more airtime.

Again, it's astounding that in 2017 people haven't figured out that clicking on an article is a surefire way to get more articles like it published. I don't understand what these folks think they're going to accomplish. Emailing the editors, confronting the AVC Twitter feed, walking away from the site: these are the…

Every major protest attracts anarchists who are more interested in fucking shit up than in any of the ideas being discussed or protested. And no, I'm not saying they're plants from the other side, they just show up because they know it'll be a chance to smash things. They've been doing since at least the WTO protests…

He definitely thought she was hot - I remember an interview where he referenced "these incredible babes who are part of the Republican party" or something like that, and Coulter was the example used. Coulter is much like Milo in that their outer trappings have a lot to do with why they're invited places. Unlike Milo,…

"because the stuff that makes him a novelty in his usual circles is a dime a dozen everywhere else."

Exactly. Having someone on who actually believes what Milo claims to, in order to debate ideas substantively, would be potentially useful. Having a troll on who does it all for lulz and money is beyond useless.

Heh. No, I mean the guy who built a hatemongering website and still has contact with the army of online trolls he helped build.

Not my president (and I mean that literally - I'm Canadian). But yes, I noticed there wasn't a flat denial of everything that was reported; the one thing Turnbull denied outright was that Trump hung up on him. Everything else was characterizing the 'tone' differently than the reporting did.

2) Boohoo. She can call Michelle Obama and ask her how to deal with people being mean to her.

First of all, it's "affects." Second of all, a "two-way street" means give and take, which I don't think is what you mean to say here. If I'm reading you correctly, you mean that both the government and the media have a responsibility to inform the public, which I don't think anyone would disagree with. But there…

No it isn't. If one does accept that they needed increased screening, one accepts that. Not a variation on or extension of that, but that. One could accept the idea that Trump had received further intelligence that would justify the ban were it not for the following:

1) Agreed
2) What comment was this? The biggest Melania stories I've seen have been about how much it's costing taxpayers to keep her in New York, and how the lawsuit she filed demonstrated her intent to leverage her position for personal gain. But I may have missed something else that you're referring to.
3) This was a…

Tomayto, tomahto in this case, as far as I'm concerned. As you say, it's not at all surprising that it was a fishing expedition for potential donors, but for anyone connected to him to whine that an internet survey didn't manage to target solely the respondents they were looking for is typical of Team Trump's…

Fine - since you're the "source?" guy, find me a credible one that says it was only about 120 people, and I'll agree that it *could be* that, or more than that.

The biggest trust erosion of the 20th century happened thanks to criminal government activity uncovered by the media. I realize most of the press aren't Woodward and Bernstein. But when the public has been primed to see "press points out quantifiable fact in contradiction to what elected leader says" as FAKE NEWS, the…

Sounds like it was a lot more than 120 people, anyway.

Considering Pruitt's background, Trump's pro-business leanings, and the general tone of the Republicans in Congress, I think I will, thanks - especially as that bill I just linked to is a pretty good indication of what they want, even if they won't necessarily get all of it.

"What does the law say on funding abortions?

120, or 60K, if you believe Trump's state department: https://www.theguardian.com…