True! Though he was interviewed on Pod Save America and attributed the success of the fact-checking to the fact that he is a late night host and has a live studio audience. He said the format kept it from seeming like he was hounding her or being aggressive, because the audience’s reactions (laughter) made it clear…

Exactly. I mean, they have their biases, but not enough to ignore a “massacre”.

“You know what, Chris, you call that fact checking and I call it clinging rigidly to your opinion when I’m presenting perfectly reasonable alternative facts. Not to mention that Secretary Clinton / Obama / Benghazi.”

Or at the very least, FACT CHECK THEM IN REAL TIME GODDAMN IT.

Christ, you’re right, and that’s so depressing.

Yes, but I want to believe it’s not that people don’t want truth and facts, but that they are intimidated because they don’t know how to evaluate evidence, so they turn to a source they generally agree with and allow that source to evaluate evidence for them. If we taught more science literacy it would help.

It’s because punctuation is beneath him. When you listen to him, some of his oddly timed pauses and changes in tone make it SEEM like he completed a sentence but he really didn’t.

“Also, I’m going to fix black people’s communities, which are terrible. If they don’t love my better jobs and schools platitudes, they’re sure to love me for promising to send the cops after them.”

A perfectly nice churchgoing friend of a friend on Facebook was like “well, it sounded pretty terrible at first but then I read this article and it explained a lot”. With a link to some incredibly biased coverage that boiled down to “The President is not breaking any laws, that green card thing was a misunderstanding,…

True, personal stories tend to resonate with many people in a different way than statistics and expert predictions. A fact that drives me crazy as a science/numbers person who thinks if we just did a better job teaching people to evaluate evidence and data, it would save a lot of human suffering.

Hadn’t seen that, thanks for posting.

Yes, the spontaneous airport protests gave me a hopeful little bubble in my chest that this poll popped.

I was fooled by the fact that every person I know (including habitual Republicans) thought it was at the very least pointless, with most thinking more like “horrific” - coupled with the massive protests and the occasional Republican politician willing to speak out against it. I really just anticipated that fewer…

This is an important reminder, thank you. People really have no idea. I saw something on National Review that said “Obama was president when the Syrian crisis started, yet only a couple of dozen refugeses were accepted that first year, where was your liberal outrage then?” and I was like, uh, there’s basically no way…

Preach. Not to mention that even in this poll which finds nearly half of Americans on board with the ban, only a third believe it will make them safer. So assuming all those who believe a ban will make them safer support it (which may not even be true) - that accounts for 2/3. That still leaves a full third of…

“Oh, that’s Rudy? Then who’s Michael Pence?”

Jezzies, can we talk about this?

Sorry to hear. There’s enough awfulness floating around without the added stress and shock of an upset in your personal life. Solidarity.

This is a good PSA. We should all watch this PSA and let it be a reminder to us to be very very careful with our words.

(For real though. Please don’t say illegal stuff, fellow progressives and scared people. You’re angry but you don’t mean it, and importantly law enforcement doesn’t know that.)

Ok, phew. Yes, that was ridiculous and shouldn’t have happened, but at least Carson’s merely inept. I’m hoping the Dems put up more of a fight with Sessions who’s straight up dangerous.