Yeah, but then, after next Tuesday your icon is either going to be that of a President elect with a wiener on his face, or of a guy who stirred up a bunch of shit to start his own television news network.

Evan McMullin is an open borders amnesty supporter. Evan has two mommies. His mother is a lesbian, married to another woman. Evan is okay with that. Indeed Evan supports the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

The point is that they don’t get punished not because they don’t care about laws. They care deeply about the law. It’s a great shield for doing extremely shitty things and then being able to say“Well, actually” and then sic your horde of lawyers on everyone proving that what you did may have been terrible but was…

Well, as a practical matter, the GOP had little choice in attempting to woo the religious right. At the point of guys like Nixon, they had the choice of either letting disaffected southern white Democrats drift off to form a 3rd party which would fracture their power base or attempting to weld together a platform…

You’re deeply confused about a great many things if you think billionaires don’t spend gigantic boatloads of money on lawyers.

I’m not misreading anything.

Facebook may be able to use it’s TOS to fit a lot of user data analysis in between the lines of “legitimate purpose”. They may or may not be able to fit this in there specifically, but all it would require is an update to their TOS to do it. Also, keep in mind that this information would not be directly related to…

In many ways the explosion of mental illness is directly related to the disintegration of civic society. Part of that is directly related to technology, specifically monetized engineered “social” networks taking the place of traditional social networks and participation in civic commons 

I think the elder Bushes are a perfect example of just how stupid the Republican party is. Not because they are dumb, but because pretty much the only reason he lost in ‘92 was that he struggled to get the Republican base out because of his willingness to compromise in order to get shit done and because he’d done a…

. The thing about nuance is that it’s really easy to sort of crush any possibility of it existing when you say things like:

If that’s shade then literally every simplistic invective ever thrown is shade.

What nuance? This article has none.

I feel like a lot of the takes in here lacked ... scale.

I don’t think she had her own email server for security as much as she had it so it would work on her devices. She simply told someone to “fix it” when she couldn’t read her emails on her phone and they did.

But so much of elections are not relative. People do not want to be asked to choose between options they don’t like. They more that is thrown in their faces, the less likely they are to go vote at all.

Now you do have more lessons of history to take into account, and you know that it’s actually going to be much harder to avoid the revolution betraying its own ideals, because so many of them do. But...” he pauses for a long moment, “perhaps it’s possible that it won’t.”

But has she learned?

Yeah, but the Clinton campaign could have made proactive efforts at transparency right after she sent them.

Well now you’re just making shit up.

I don’t know that it will change minds, but on net, it will cost her votes.