lol you understand that the dominant right wing war hawk faction of the democrats is trying to make you blame their loss on the russians so you don't vote them out of power and support actual reformers who want to stop the corporate welfare and socialized losses inherent in the bipartisan corporatist project to reduce…

lol regardless of who hacked what providing factual information about a political party during an election by definition literally made the election more democratic.

as a former intelligence official weisberg knows the difference between an assessment and forensic evidence, i'm assuming. he's also clearly not a fan of the original cold war and goes way out of his way to illustrate the failures of the opposing intelligence services to meaningfully understand each others' motives…

remember the first episode of the colbert report way back in the 2000s when he coined the term truthiness to mock conservatives who believe anything anyone ever tells them as long as it confirms their mostly ignorant and unexamined biases?

i'll be honest - don't be too hard on me - i don't actually watch sam bee regularly so i haven't compiled an exhausive list of all the times she was a soulless party shill pushing bad policy on the pampered white centrists that adore her.

and the press is going whole hog with the russian hacking thing to the point where HALF of democrats believe russia literally hacked the election, even though intelligence agencies aren't even claiming to have forensic evidence proving it, just educated guesses and inductive logic. you're seeing an imaginary…

lmfao i'm in agreement with you about the comey thing, numbnuts. take your foot off the gas pedal speed racer and read at a pace you can keep up with.

i hope neither of us is right and a meteor wipes em all out

i get that. calling pissgate comedy christmas immediately after sternly lecturing from some presumed moral high ground about the dangers of happily anticipating the comedic potential of a trump presidency still seems kinda shitty to me

i would say erring on the side of transparency is an unqualified positive regardless of bias as long as it's evenly applied

russia is pretty much just on the side of not getting surrounded by an outdated coalition of cold war aggression mobilizing SAMs tanks soldiers and nuclear weapons along their borders.

it'll bite him in the ass in the sense that any of his cabinet appointees that aren't sufficiently hawkish on russia will be unable to get confirmation under the auspices of a neomcarthyesque witch hunt

literally the only difference between trump and the rest of the GOP at this point is they want war with russia and he doesn't. that's the only part of his agenda they're willing to oppose.

i'm still confused about how making the election more democratic by trying to make the electorate more informed is somehow a subversion of democracy

i followed this election pretty closely and i can't think of one single hillary scandal or "scandal" if you prefer reported by establishment corporate media that wasn't based in at least interpretation of actual verifiable fact.

about to?

isn't sam bee the person who was screeching about trump's presidency not being good for comedy in a bid to be the most loud and self righteous about every possible thing?

is that the dumb cliche you're using to concede a point?

television shows live or die by viewership in competition with other programming and going by your criteria that anything involving competition can't be art we are forced to conclude that television can't be art. the implication that raw viewership numbers is any kind of metric to apply to a craft's artfulness is so…

i always thought it was extremely lame that people couldn't handle criticism of stuff they liked and pressured the staff to have only useless fanboys/girls write everything. that along with the transition to sub-buzzfeed-level trend chasing and metrics-based content manufacturing really did a number on the overall…