Breaking news: they just found a picture of a bridge on Anthony Weiner’s computer, Comey has announced that they will be doing a public strip search of Chris Christie in Madison Square Garden.

Yeah, it’s truly awful. The worst part about it is how much it distracts from the very real problem of rape on campus, and gives fuel to the narrative that accusers are commonly lying about being raped.

“Rolling Stone co-founder and publisher Jann Wenner said he stands by the non-Jackie portions of the story:”

“His book is similarly narratively askew”

I’m not from Chicago. If you’re from New York though, I’ll point out that your city is home to the Trump Tower Taco Bowl, so...

I’m not from Chicago, I just go there for the hot dogs. I don’t live in a large city, I’m not insane.

“Trump may be a racist, but at least he’s a racist against blacks, Mexicans and Arabs. Hillary is a racist against email protocols.”

“I’m not making those arguments, so you don’t have to argue against it. I’m just asking you to make sense. If a vote for Stein affects neither Clinton nor Trump’s chances, why does it matter?”

Well, I would certainly never say no to a variety of sandwiches. But if New York wants to maintain its overwhelming sense of superiority, it needs to up its hot dog game, for sure.

A city that is home to the Chicago-style hot dog does not need “new restaurants.”

“she turned around to see an officer “still pointing the barrel of his rubber bullet gun at her.””

“If a vote for Stein doesn’t help Clinton win any electoral college votes, how does a non-Trump vote give the votes of Clinton supporters a better chance to elect Clinton? Don’t electoral college votes determine whether or not a candidate is elected?”

“How does voting for Clinton, against one’s own values, do “more” to defeat Trump than voting for another non-Trump candidate does? Don’t all votes for non-Trump candidates make it less likely for Trump to win? Are some votes weighted more heavily than others?”

“Can you explain why not voting for Clinton gives the votes of Trump supporters a better chance to elect Trump, but not voting for Trump doesn’t give the votes of Clinton supporters a better chance to elect Clinton?”

I’ll merely quote what I already said:

Voting against someone often is exactly how first-past-the-post elections work. According to polls, roughly 56% of Clinton voters say they are voting for Clinton, while the rest are voting primarily against her opponent. Believe it or not, that is basically average for a Presidential nominee. Sure, the ballot does not…

A third party vote is a protest vote in that you have no realistic expectation your candidate might win. That doesn’t mean you don’t actually support that candidate and their policies, it just means that you are voting to express your feelings, not because you think the candidate you support can win the election. But…

“You can’t assume Clinton would have had the vote of someone who hasn’t voted for her. That’s not how voting works. If you don’t give me your apple, I don’t have one less apple than any actual real situation that’s ever happened or is ever going to happen. I have one less apple than an imagined potential future…

This is not a new summary, this is what I have been saying the whole time. Your apples analogy is meaningless, and seems to assume a frankly astounding lack of intelligence on my part. Of course, “[i]f someone doesn’t give you an apple, you have the same number of apples you started with, not one less.” But I’m not…

And god damn it, Florida is now pretty much exactly on the fence. I’m already seeing motions to recuse RBG in my head.