People Need to Chill Out About the Email News - It's a Non-Issue

From Kurt Eichenwald's Twitter feed:

1. Case not reopened.
2. Comey had to correct testimony.
3. Involves 3 emails whose classification must be determined.
4. None w/held by HRC.

Source: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792079725329907713

Details of FBI: They found 3 emails that "might" be relevant to the case. None of them were withheld by Clinton.

Source: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792075393515724800

DetailsThe big thing that the Comey letter shows: Media will report things without reading the document or trying to find out what it means.

Source: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792068715227394048

What they've gone and done is created a bunch of left wing echo chambers...

You find them here, on Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post... Really anywhere that people would gather to discuss things. A trend I noticed taking hold last year is that the Berners would defend the Senator. It happened in case after case. I think in the beginning it was well meaning. After all, Sanders was seen as a underdog and — at first — he was largely ignored by the media. And you know, Americans love an underdog!

Then gradually, ever so slowly, the premise of their support was no longer valid as the media reported consistently on Sanders. The problem was that the Berners didn't give up the belief that they were ignored, underestimated, and didn't stand a chance. They got caught up in the same mentality that so occupies the Christian Right's true believers. They were convinced they were being persecuted and then in a zealous over reaction their defense of Sanders became bullying in his name. This was evidenced by their penchant to immediately storm in and squash all civil discussion with purity diatribes decrying the lack of intelligence of the opposition, impugning their integrity as being bought and paid for, and dehumanizing rants centered on sex, race, and political leaning.

Eventually no one felt it was safe to speak out in contrary to the Bernie memes and his supporters. So, as described to me by many of Hillary's supporters and other observers across the Web, they grew quiet and less likely to speak up. DU's own Hillary Clinton Group is a fine example of this.

No one wanted to venture out. We hid behind hashtags on Twitter, protected Facebook groups, and private discussion boards if fortunate enough. Occasionally, on Facebook and Twitter especially, the Berners would show up and immediately start back in with the insults, insinuations, and accusations.

Let's be clear, Hillary supporters weren't angels across the board. Some of them could be downright belittling in their reverse ageism and trumpeting mockery of "Bernie babies want free stuff!" That wasn't productive and did nothing to quell the growing divisions. However, the Hillary zealots paled in comparison to the Sanders True Believers. You can still see that in action today by going outside of this group or onto any of the aforementioned social media sites. It's known that approximately 80% of DU was at one time solidly in the Sanders camp.

Would you tattoo a politician's image on your body?

Apparently, some people are doing that, and I have to say that I really don't get it. I love my wife a great deal, and I've had lovers that I have loved deeply as well. However, never once have I ever wanted to tattoo their name -- much less their visage -- anywhere on my body. So, please can someone explain to me why someone would get a tattoo of a politician?

Why Donald Trump Might Be the Most Dangerous Presidential Candidate in History

Why Donald Trump Might Be the Most Dangerous Presidential Candidate in History

Gautam Mukunda
Assistant Professor, Harvard Business School, Author, Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter



Unless Donald Trump announces in the next few weeks that he is secretly a Muslim, gay, undocumented Mexican immigrant (and let's be honest, less likely things have happened in this election cycle), he's almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee for the presidency.

If he won, how much impact would President Trump likely have? Pretty much everyone watching this election is probably asking themselves that question right now, and it's exactly the sort of question my research answers. I studied every Presidential election in American history to better understand which leaders have outsized impact -- for good or ill.

In the course of my research, I concluded that presidents ultimately fall into one of two categories: "Filtered" -- the ones who gain power normally, by rising through the ranks of the political system, and "Unfiltered" -- those who gain power with little national political experience or over the opposition of political elites. "Unfiltered" presidents tend to have huge effects and end up remembered as either the best (e.g., Lincoln, FDR) or worse (e.g., Harding, Pierce). Trump, without a single day of experience as an elected official and actively opposed by the Republican establishment, would be the most unfiltered president in American history.

Clinton and Sanders Voted the Same Way 93% of the Time!

Hi, fellow supporters of Hillary! One of my favorite sites for tracking elections since 2004 has been http://electoral-vote.com. I just stumbled on this interesting story over there and wanted to share it with everyone:

While a lot of Sanders supporters see Hillary Clinton as a corporate shill who can't be trusted, in reality Sanders and Clinton don't actually differ that much. The New York Times investigated how they voted during the two years they were in the Senate together. On 93% of the votes, they voted the same way. They did differ 31 times, though (7%) and the article lists every vote where they didn't agree. Clinton's voting record is comparable to that of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), both liberal stalwarts.

Clinton and Sanders differed eight times on foreign policy and defense, mostly on Iran, Guantanamo, and the defense budget. Most times Clinton voted with overwhelming Democratic majorities and Sanders opposed them. On immigration, they differed seven times, once on Y-1 visas and six times on procedural questions. On the financial crisis of 2008, they disagreed three times. Clinton supported Obama on bailing out the banks to avoid destroying the financial system; Sanders voted with the Republicans to let the banks fail.

On energy, they differed four times. Clinton supported ethanol (probably because she was already thinking about the Iowa caucuses) and Sanders opposed it. They also differed on some loans and credits. On homeland security, they differed four times, all of which were close votes in the Senate. Three of them related to the conditions of issuing grants related to homeland security. The other one was about giving immunity to suspicious people who reported threats. Clinton was for immunity; Sanders was opposed.

The last five were a mixed bag. Clinton supported NIST's Advanced Technology Program; Sanders didn't. Clinton supported the FDA reform bill (2x), Sanders was opposed. Clinton opposed earmarks and Sanders supported them. Finally, Clinton supported $45 billion in estate tax exemptions and Sanders, this time in the majority, opposed them.

Last paragraph at link:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Feb26.html#item-6