I said literally the opposite of that - that you can push back against sexism without draping the victim of that sexism with praise. Why bother to engage at all if you’re just going to claim that I’m saying the exact opposite of what I am saying?

She is a completely mainstream Republican, and the Republican party is a party of racism and bigotry. I’m not interested in whether she’s a self-made woman. I’m interested in whether her policies are good for this country, and the answer to that is absolutely not.

I’ve said this from the beginning: this election has never been close. The fact that very predictable swings in polling, particularly post-conventions, brought the polls close to (but never reaching) a dead heat in fact demonstrates that this election has always been in the bag for Democrats. Remember, Romney was…

Literally every campaign does that. The idea that this is some thuggish Trump tactic is just wrong. There’s more than enough wrong with the actual Trump campaign to not have to make shit up.

No one? Look again. And besides: calling her smart, better educated, and hardworking is exactly the kind of rehabilitation of Republicans that has been a second-order danger of this campaign. It’s incredible to me how Democrats are participating in improving the reputations of awful Republicans in the name of…

Really, really depressing to see so many commenters here cheering on this woman who participated in subjecting Muslim Americans to some of the most brutal state-sponsored oppression in the country’s history. It’s perfectly possible to push back against Trump’s sexism without lathering praise on a woman with utterly…

Well, see, here’s the other thing.

I hear you.

Maybe because that’s a central plank of Christianity?

you typically need to straddle the line between the 2 big parties, which involves making some concessions on both sides

What is worse, exactly - having some kooky fears that WiFi might cause cancer? Or believing that the United States should be in a state of perpetual war? The former gets you treated like a pariah; the latter has been the opinion of every single candidate for president since 9/11. They’ve all supported the…

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.