If you really wanted these people to work with you, a piece like this is the absolute worst way to go about doing it. Ridiculing people doesn’t convince them of anything, which is Jon Oliver’s problem - all he knows how to do is to stare into a screen and call people stupid. Both of these things can’t be true: it…

Every one of those things are things that the United States does.

No one is defending Russia. No one here has defended Russia. So your comments are pretty weird. More to the point: no nation on earth has done more, or still does more, to influence foreign political conditions, including foreign elections, through espionage than the United States. It’s not even close. Are you under…

Fair enough!

Yeah, again, he’s a creep. But look, here’s a list of just 10 of them from Slate:

The targeted killing of Iraqi civilians on camera alone was a leak of major political importance, and helped to demonstrate to the American people just what armed occupation of a foreign country actually looks like.

I’m not going to run through the dozens or hundreds of revelations that were made through those leaks. Glenn Greenwald has done that at great length. Again, Assange’s character is entirely separate from the importance of those leaks, and given that you’ve demonstrated that you can’t keep those things separate, I can’t…

Not liking him is fine. The relevance of the Manning leaks is separate from that, though.

Many documents published by Wikileaks have been of obvious public interest and have been invaluable for the press and for democracy. Assange’s character doesn’t change that.

I’m really digging how Democrats are becoming the new party of useless Cold War posturing and opposition to whistle blowers.

According to Republicans, it’s a vehicle for truth in a rigged world.

Yeah this is a workspace envisioned by someone thinking about everything except getting work done.

This post is like a guy at freshman orientation who tells you that real rock and roll fans only listen to Blind Lemon Jefferson.

Let’s be clear, though - the Sanders people have been much better at supporting down-ballot candidates than the HRC campaign.

That is not an argument; it’s without content. A no-fly zone is the actual debate at hand. That’s what’s being discussed, by both parties, in America’s Syrian policy. If you’re not informed about the basic dynamics of the debate, don’t get mad at me about it.

The article is supposed to prove what’s been clear to any serious observer for years: that the American policy in both Syria and the greater Middle East is totally schizophrenic, that we have no over-arching strategy or vision for what we’re supposed to be accomplishing. We’ve had an AUMF that gives us carte blanche…

This post and the comments thread is an object lesson in how partisanship makes people incredibly stupid. In another comment, people keep mocking someone for saying that the United States is supporting Al-Nusra and that a no-fly zone would require boots on the ground, both of which are absolutely correct. But because…

No, he didn’t. He accurately reflected the fact that the United States has armed and assisted Al-Nusra, which is a rebranded Al-Qaeda. He’s saying something accurate and he’s being mocked for it by a lot of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

He’s right. He’s just correct.

It means exactly that - there’s no way to establish a no-fly zone without boots on the ground, as absolutely any credible analysis of that proposal will tell you. Do ten seconds of research before you guys go for the full “hurr hurr Democrats are good so you must be wrong” routine. Jesus.