Bernie Sanders

Wikileaks Document Dump Shows DNC's Distaste for Sanders

Prepare for another round of 'The system is rigged.'

|

Clinton and Sanders
Bryce Vickmark/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Last night in Donald Trump's nomination acceptance speech, the candidate made clear plays toward Bernie Sanders voters, referencing him by name and repeating Sanders refrain that "the system is rigged" on behalf of the rich and powerful.

Sanders' Twitter feed at the time was not having it, blasting out criticism of Trump's speech. But today the Twitter feed is silent about an email dump from Wikileaks that has grown more and more attention throughout the day. A hacker got his hands on nearly 20,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that show that the allegedly neutral leadership of the party was at least frustrated with Sanders and was possibly trying to undermine his campaign.

The nastiest piece of internal email suggests that somebody at the DNC wanted to figure out whether they could use Sanders' religion, or rather the possible lack of it, to attack him in Southern states. From Mediaite:

In an email dated May 5, DNC CFO Brad Marshall apparently floats the idea of trying to raise Sanders' potential atheism. The email does not mention Sanders by name. The email says, "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

In a subsequent email on the same thread, Marshall wrote simply, "It's these [sic] Jesus thing."

Sanders trounced Clinton in West Virginia and narrowly lost Kentucky.

The Intercept contacted Marshall, who said he didn't recall the email, but said it wouldn't have been about Sanders but rather a "surrogate." Not sure that actually makes it better.

It will be interesting to see how the Sanders supporters who show up at the Democratic National Convention next week react to this news. Perhaps they'll add some more cabbage and asparagus to their diet.

Read more about the contents of the emails here at The Washington Post.

NEXT: Tim Kaine's principled defense of constitutional limits on presidential power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We’ll keep the atheists and the Jews, but we don’t want the Irish!

    1. Where is Irish nowadays?

      1. I think I saw him down at the Goodwill the other day looking for a set of white sheets…

        (But seriously, my guess is he got in on the handle change shenanigans…)

        1. But shit, it was 99 cents!

          New Sheets

          1. Remember that shitty article Reason published by Thad Russell claiming the message of this song was worse than anally sodomizing infants?

            Good times.

            1. Nope. I remember the Ravens winning the Superbowl right after I first heard this song, though. It seemed appropriate for some reason.

            2. I just re-read that… and you know what? i agree with him.

              while the song itself is maybe not to be taken seriously, the thing he’s criticizing – middle-class progressive “poverty-chic” – is certainly connected to it, and is pernicious.

              “”Smarter and deeper than the hedonistic masses is indeed what liberal critics of the poor have always believed themselves to be””

              even if his piece goes one-toke over the line, there’s something notable about how white-people rap celebrates (at least appearing) poor, while black-people rap still glorifies getting-rich.

              1. Well, as I commented when the piece was posted originally, Russell didn’t get the deprecating humor Macklemore employs in the lyrics and the video against the protagonist in the song.

                Like the early progressives, Macklemore believes he knows better than the poor what they should desire, buy, and value.

                What Thad misses is that Macklemore believes hipsters who intentionally look for the most outlandishly garish clothing in thrift stores look like fucking clowns. This pointed is hammered home at the end of the song and video when a child laughs at him and asks if he’s wearing his grandmother’s clothes. The song, itself, is criticizing the pretensions of middle-class progressive “poverty-chic”.

                there’s something notable about how white-people rap celebrates (at least appearing) poor, while black-people rap still glorifies getting-rich.

                I think this is generally true. I don’t recall, say, the Beastie Boys big ballin’ in any of their videos.

                1. Your comments were here

                  I grant that his critique of that particular song may be completely off base (and frankly, i don’t really care; i’m not a fan or a hater, i just don’t really think it matters all that much)….

                  ….but i still think the anti-materialist pretenses of artists, which appeal to young people who want to wave around their ostentatious ‘rejection’ of their own wealthy suburban milieu, is a very real thing, and probably, despite what you say is the opposite of the intention of the song, part of its very appeal, and certainly influenced the attention/awards it received.

                  iow, even if Russell completely missed the boat on the actual meaning of the song, it doesn’t really matter; the people he’s criticizing the people who laud that sort of posture – would as well.

                  in short, i still think he has a point.

                  my favorite comment myself from that link =

                  “as a libertarian”…

                  …I have nothing but contempt for peasants celebrating their impecunious condition as some kind of de-facto virtuousness. Christ may have sold people on that shtick, but last I checked, The Pope Still Lives Large

                  If these slave-songs help the proles work harder in my diamond mines, so be it: let them sing. But I insist on silence around my pet tigers.

              2. As usual, the Weird Al version is much better

                https://youtu.be/w-0TEJMJOhk

              3. When I hear that song, I remember being a student.

                I think that is the difference. White people associate being poor with a phase in life. With being young and having fun and no responsibilities. We don’t associate it with a permanent condition.

                1. I know a number of people who associate being poor within being a permanent condition. By my estimation, everyone of them makes a point of engaging in behavior that will ensure that as an outcome.

        2. What is with the handle changing shenanigans. Did I miss some blow up people want to disassociate with?

          1. It seems to be periodic around here. Sometimes it’s because of a specific event, like with all the woodchipping, but often it’s just kind of random.

            1. BALCONY MAN would be a good handle.

              1. Can I call that? How does this work.

                1. Just change it. First come, first serve.

          2. If you get your tinfoil hat on just right… I mean the azimuth and inclination have to be just right, and then wait for the planets to be aligned just right, you can figure out just when to change your posting name. Either that, or there is no conspiracy and it’s just a trend like:

            + 1 (insert phrase here)

            You know who else…?

            /derp

            I dunno.

            1. Declination

              1. It’s been a long time since I’ve dealt with setting up a satellite dish, but I could have sworn it was inclination. How can you pick up the illuminati signals without that? Ohhh, I get it, there living underground?

                1. Oh, nm, then. I thought you were talking about the position of the planets, which are measured with declination and hour angles.

                  1. Oh, ok. I was thinking about satellite tracking when I wrote that.

            2. Azimuth and *altitude*

            3. Deflection and quadrant or go away.

        3. Hah, what? Ridiculous! You’re one paranoid nig–gentleman. I have it on very good authority that “Irish” is doing charity work among the cannib–peoples in the darkest of Africa. He’s a great man!

          1. Nah, he ran off to Iceland because Ireland is not white enough.

    2. Neither does Britain or the EU.

    3. Let me guess. You almost lost a $400 hand cart?

  2. the allegedly neutral leadership of the party was at least frustrated with Sanders and was possibly trying to undermine his campaign.

    Are you implying Debbie Wasserman Shultz (sp? who cares?) was trying to torpedo Bernie in order to assist la Clinton?

    Please keep your conspiracy theories in the realm of the possible.

    1. Bernie promised her some shampoo.

      1. +1 brand

      2. Or maybe some puppy treats.

  3. Poor Milo Yomamaopolis and Ann Coulter – no matter how crazy they act, they can’t out-crazy the progs.

    1. Milo seems quite sane to me.

      I fully expect feminists to start having abortion parties like women have Tupperware parties now, with abortion prizes for the latest term abortion. ‘Oh yeah, well I brought my 3 year old today!’.

      1. Hell, the first time I actually saw Milo was on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and he came off as way too calm and collected for the provocateur image he seems to be going for. Rogan, on the other hand, made a complete and utter ass of himself.

        1. The guy is obviously intelligent, witty, and he totally pisses off SJWs and the left in general. What’s not to like?

          1. The fact that he’s almost as much of an intellectual lightweight as you?

            1. RRRRRRRRRETARD.

              Sorry, SugarFree, Couldn’t help myself.

              1. Oh another lightweight. ‘Festival of the Imbeciles’ right here.

                1. ‘Festival of the Imbeciles’ right here.

                  You should feel right at home, then, chimpy.

                2. Cytotoxic, aren’t you just some flapping headed Canadian who voted for Justin Trudeau? As such, you are merely an intellectual lightweight at best. Now apologize to your betters.

        2. He was on again more recently and i thought he (milo) was very good.

          Rogan’s shtick is….well, either you forgive him or you don’t. He’s not a person who cares about ‘ideas’ enough to even remember what he believed in the previous show. But he has flashes of libertarianism; here he goes ballistic about gun-control (pun intended)… other times, he completely flip flops and will endorse whatever progressive ideas his guests propose, like universal healthcare.

          1. I just don’t see why you’d ever want to be interviewed by a guy who just starts screaming ‘BULLSHIT’ at you over and over again.

            The shows where he mostly agrees with his guest are fine. Yes, it’s clear he has no interest in having any kind of complexity in his viewpoints, but he’s at least willing to talk about ‘politically incorrect’ subject matter and have the conviction to support unpopular viewpoints. But goddamn, when someone hits him with an amygdala hijack he just goes nuts.

            1. Maybe he was interviewed before by both O’Reilly and our own beloved Kennedy and was just seeking a better experience?

            2. I just don’t see why you’d ever want to be interviewed by a guy who just starts screaming ‘BULLSHIT’ at you over and over again.

              I’ve never seem him do that.

              I’ve seen him disagree, but pass on getting into some detailed debate about ‘why’. he’s a meathead. most of the people who go on his show don’t expect him to provide some intense intellectual foil. but i’ve never seen him be incredibly rude about his disagreement.

              do you have a specific example in mind?

              1. Video I linked, nine minutes in. Admittedly he does say more than just bullshit, but he’s constantly trying to talk over Milo’s point.

                1. Can we please ditch this out-dated idea that morality comes from religion? If that is the crux of Milo’s thesis, he is even more of an intellectual lightweight than I thought.

                  1. Can we please ditch this out-dated idea that morality comes from religion? If that is the crux of Milo’s thesis, he is even more of an intellectual lightweight than I thought.

                    No one said anything about that. go watch the video if you care.

                  2. Religion is a moral framework, but it is hardly the only or best moral framework.

                  3. *pounds head on desk*

                    No, you don’t get Milo’s point either, because you’re already jumping on the ‘you can’t have morality without religion’ strawman. Milo specifically mentions that’s not his argument.

                    What Milo is (likely) referencing is the idea that Judeo-Christian ethical constructs providing the framework for modern Western thought on morality and that said religious influences have lead to fundamental assumptions in philosophy on the subject of free will, truth, values, etc. Also known as an argument by Nietzsche, i.e. an atheist.

                  4. Well, I think there is a reasonable argument that morality does come from (at least in part) measured irrationality, of which religion is one subset.

                2. I’ll be fair, rewatching the clip he does calm down pretty fast and starts actually trying to discuss it. But he’s not even willing to entertain Milo’s point and immediately redirects it to an argument he’s not trying to make.

                  1. That’s because Milo’s points are totally asinine. It’s hard to take that stuff seriously. Every culture ever has rules against murder. Many of these cultures have never heard of Jesus. So how can morality come from the Bible?

                    1. Religion or Bible? That’s a difference you know.

                    2. Oh yeah? What about Canada? Murder is legal in Canada, and they never even heard of the Bible. They worship Zambonis, pollar bears, and Bobby Orr.

                    3. “They worship Zambonis, pollar bears, and Bobby Orr.”

                      You forgot Geddy Lee, friend.

                    4. I seem to recall that a right of passage for Spartan men was to hunt and kill one of their non Spartan subjects.

                    5. Milo said that some culture are better than other, and that the ones that aren’t based on Judeo/Christian tend to be shitty. Like Muslim ones.

                3. re: “” a guy who just starts screaming ‘BULLSHIT’ at you over and over again.””

                  I just watched about half of the above clip you linked to. and i see a little of what you mean.

                  And I think Rogan actually owned him on that (at least up until about the 9m mark)

                  Milo may have an honest preference for the traditionalist arts and classical/pre-modern stuff the alt-righties are always glorifying as so “peak of western civilization” blah blah…

                  ….but Milo’s claimed catholicism seems to be a complete sham – at least at the outset. He’s grinning the entire time Rogan is busting on him about it. I think he’s not even “Lay”, but he likes to claim it because it appeals to his fanbase. I do think he’s honest about a certain *appreciation* for catholicism tho (something i sort of share)

                  and Rogan’s busting his balls actually leads to some interesting argument from Milo @4:39 about a secular appreciation for the humanistic basis of all religions. I think as dumb as Rogans “nuh-uh?” counter-argument is, he at least provoked something good from his guest

                  I think on the issue of ‘athiesm’, that sort of “Bullshit”-shouting its not an attitude i think is specific to Rogan at all. Have you ever seen Sevo get into it w/ Eddie?

                  1. While we’re on the issue, btw = go watch 5m of the “Gun control” clip linked above.

                  2. Oh yeah, I’m not arguing that Milo’s Catholicism isn’t goofy bullshit at all. My major issue is just the massive emotional response to what should be a question that, as an atheist, you should be able to answer rationally. Hell, based on our beliefs I should be on Rogan’s side but he manages to make such a bad case for it when he loses his shit.

                    I think on the issue of ‘athiesm’, that sort of “Bullshit”-shouting its not an attitude i think is specific to Rogan at all. Have you ever seen Sevo get into it w/ Eddie?

                    There’s a reason I dropped out of the New Atheist crowd several years ago.

                    1. Are the New Atheists all those dudes that are evangelical about their atheism? That’s about equally silly in my book. Perhaps the root problem here is evangelism of any kind, trying to validate your world view and your ego by pushing it onto others.

                    2. My major issue is just the massive emotional response to what should be a question that, as an atheist, you should be able to answer rationally

                      Agreed. Rogan doesn’t want to hear it and he doesn’t really have any ammo aside from “DER ITS DUMB”.

                      Aside from this ‘asshole athiest’ act, i’ve rarely seen him get quite as dick-y. Probably because he’s not smart enough.

                      Still, i don’t listen to very many podcasts, and i find Rogans “dudebro chat-style” generally good for a few laughs and even get some interesting stuff out of his guests. Though i’ve only probably sat though a dozen or so (and he’s done hundreds)

                  3. The biggest bullshit is around @21:00.

                    I knew at 5 I wanted to kiss women*. I remember the exact moment, I was sitting on my grandmother’s couch, watching TV…some 80’s thing…and I saw some beautiful 80’s women on the TV and I remember thinking to myself “Chicks are pretty cool”.

                    *I didn’t learn that you could do other stuff as well until a little later.

                    1. I knew at 5 I wanted to kiss women*.

                      So you’re saying parents should make decisions about their children’s potential-alternative-sexuality at 5?

                      Because that’s what they’re actually arguing about.

                      I think milo’s entirely right – that people deciding their kid is trans, pre-puberty? Are fucking insane.

                    2. I think milo’s entirely right – that people deciding their kid is trans, pre-puberty? Are fucking insane.

                      Absolutely, and I don’t think an individual experience necessarily validates the notion that you can figure out a kid’s sexuality at 5.

                      The earliest I can remember is when I was either ten or eleven, when I ended up being floored by the apparent beauty of a classmate. It was an extremely vague feeling of “I want something from this girl and I have no idea why.” Alas, Lil Titor failed to win her over, but that’s probably the first sexually driven urge I can remember.

                    3. “…that’s probably the first sexually driven urge I can remember.”

                      Career Opportunities: Jennifer Connelly, tight white tank top.

                4. trying to talk over Milo’s point.

                  If you watch that video and think that Joe is the one constantly talking over Milo, you watched a different video than I did. A great example is near the end where Milo goes off on the thing about Born This Way, Joe starts to reply and Milo Does Not Get How Conversation Works. Starts trying to reply after a sentence…

        3. Milo is still a fool and an ass. He made an ass of himself at some GamerGate convention where he hijacked a debate/discussion. He also refers to Trump as ‘daddy’.

        4. Hell, the first time I actually saw Milo was on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and he came off as way too calm and collected for the provocateur image he seems to be going for. Rogan, on the other hand, made a complete and utter ass of himself.

          Haha, Joe Rogan wrecked that dude. Milo is a duche.

          1. But TEAM! KULTUR WAR

  4. In an email dated May 5, DNC CFO Brad Marshall apparently floats the idea of trying to raise Sanders’ potential atheism.

    It’s probably wishful thinking that this will finally kill the meme that the Dems are somehow more atheist-friendly.

  5. Noble lies just ain’t what they used to be.

    1. Old gray mairs, on the other hand…

  6. There are so many juicy stories in this wikileaks drop. The problem is that a few of them implicate the media, so this entire story will be buried.

    1. The pedophile express one is my favorite. They couldn’t figure out what to do the lawyer who got Epstein a slap on the wrist.

      Conclusion: They determined it was OK for him to attend fundraisers and contribute, but not host them.

      This serves as a reminder to something I already knew but had forgotten: Bill Clinton refused Secret Service protection so he could fly on a plane with underage prostitutes.

      To talk about his grandkids, obviously.

      1. So underage prostitution is the line that the Secret Service will draw in overlooking their protectee’s criminal actions or Clinton didn’t want to take the risk?

      2. Her husband refused Secret Service protection so he could fly on a plane with underage prostitutes. But Hillary is the only hope for women!

      3. One of the e-mails regarding Epstein’s attorney.

        The e-mail pretty much demonstrates that Team Clinton certainly doesn’t want to draw attention to the Clintons’ close connections with convicted pedophile Epstein and Bill’s likely dalliances with the victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking.

  7. What is this shit? What about TRUMP!?

    1. I’ve been wondering when Reason’s writers would write about him.

      1. If they were mainstream, he wouldn’t need a marketing budget.

  8. My Southern Baptist peeps

    1. The link doesn’t work.

      1. That’s because there isn’t one.

        1. Ok, I guess I don’t get it. Drunk, old, sleepy, one or a combination of those things.

            1. Oh, for Christ’s sake, you mean this article? You read these? Well, I’ll at least look for the reference.

              1. Ok, I see. That reminds me of that comedy ‘The Candidate’ with Will Ferrell, lol.

    2. “How do you do, fellow God-botherers?”

  9. Meh, the Democrats pretty much have about 3/4 of the atheist vote sewed up – they can afford to take them for granted.

  10. From newsbusters:

    The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump’s “dark speech” as one coming from a “vengeful” “demagogue.” On NBC, Tom Brokaw allowed that “some” will see Trump as on a “white horse who will lead them to some kind of sanctuary and then pull the drawbridge up.” But he sneered, “Others looking in are going to see someone they will only think as a demagogue of some kind.”

    Chuck Todd labeled, “I thought it was an extraordinarily dark speech.” Republican operative Nicolle Wallace lamented, “We are now represented as a party by a man who believes in protectionism, isolationism and nativism.”

    Over on CBS, Evening News anchor Scott Pelley immediately dismissed, “It was a loud voice, more vengeful than hopeful. More hyperbole than details.” CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose huffed that the address had “little appeal to the better angels.”

    On ABC, George Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic operative, echoed his colleague Chuck Todd: “He [Trump] painted a dark picture of where America stands today.” For emphasis, Stephanopoulos repeated, “And Martha Raddatz, a pretty dark speech.”

    Martha Raddatz chided, “If Americans are not scared for their safety before tonight, they are tonight.”

    1. The joke here is that the media and the establishment have not yet figured out that they are now nearly irrelevant and that is the reason for Donald Trump and the reason why the ‘It’s my turn’ pre-coronated queen of the DNC, nearly lost to an angry old socialist. And they will never figure it out, even after they have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

      1. In Europe at least, the old media have been going on the attack, sicking government regulators on internet companies. It’s one advantage of “sensible regulations of political speech”… only the media have any power left and politicians are eating out of their hands. Works even better when the media are partially government owned.

      2. nearly lost

        eh, not really

    2. Let’s see what sort of dark things we can find:

      “Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.”

      “Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBT community. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.”

      “When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally.
      Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America?”

      Yep, dark stuff. I can practically hear the Imperial March from Star Wars.

      1. “My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.”

        “An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.”

        1. Your powers of cherry-picking are awe-inspiring.

          1. What part of the speech was the most offensive to you and why?

            1. The part where he implies that Syrian refugees are a threat to America, even though there is basically no way for a terror organization to get in that way for reason Reason has explained in the past. He also wants to only ‘admit individuals that support “our” values and love “our people”. This is collectivism, with a fascist streak.

              Also, no one is allowed to come into America while ‘endorsing “hatred or oppression” whatever the fuck that means.

              If you had any serious libertarian bona fides I would not have to explain this.

              1. He also wants to only ‘admit individuals that support “our” values and love “our people”. This is collectivism, with a fascist streak.

                You see Derpy, you must invite people into your country who hate your values, hate your people, and give them tax money, because otherwise, you’re a fascist.

                1. This must be some strange new usage of the word “fascist” I was not previously aware of.

                  1. Please don’t respond to the 13-year-old Aspy. Any sharp dude at DLI oughta know better.

                    1. “Please don’t respond to the 13-year-old Aspy. Any sharp dude at DLI oughta know better.”

                      Pretending I don’t exist isn’t going to stop me from dominating you people.

                    2. Much like John, I don’t always agree with you, but that is some funny shit right there.

                2. You don’t have to ‘invite’ them in but you are obligated to let them immigrate. If you can prove they intend to cause harm, then back out they go (or to prison).

                  1. you are obligated to let them immigrate

                    I guess it’s some sort of… white… man’s… burden obligation?

                    1. It’s how a free country works.

                    2. A “free country” requires unlimited immigration, or only for “refugees” or what?

                    3. A “free country” requires unlimited immigration until it’s not free any more. It’s only logical.

                    4. A “free country” requires unlimited immigration

                      Yes, technically. Yes, it does.

                    5. It’s how a free country Canada works.

                      ftfy

                  2. Take it from an immigrant: no country is obligated to let anybody immigrate. Immigration is not a right.

                    1. Immigration is not a right.

                      Of course it is. Does it violate the NAP?

                  3. Can we screen them for T.B.?

            2. The parts where he criticized Islamic terrorism were hoping holy offensive to Cyto because he’s an MB operative.

    3. “Oh darkies, how my heart grows weary ….”

  11. Peeps? Delete your account, bro.

    1. Peeps, that’s like soooo 2007!

  12. Welcome to the party Reason. The Internet had you beat by 2 hours

  13. Great video on jihad from lapsed Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6ePVxRLDM0

    The gist: Like members of other religions, many Muslims break their own rules. Some of them clean up their act later and of those, some of them still feel guilty about their past sinning. The only way a Muslim is guaranteed to go to heaven is if they die while waging jihad. So for Muslim who is doubtful about their salvation, the only option is martyrdom.

    And because of this, the Ramadan Bombathon will continue apace.

    1. It’s quite a racket, no?

      1. Anjem Choudary was quite the party animal before he had his come to allah moment:
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKYZqWOWcAAH-xj.jpg

        Kingfisher is OK. I’d like to try the infamous Watney’s Red Barrel one of these days.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn0UPXd7zlA

    2. From the first few moments of that, the Muslims sound eerily like the USA.

    3. The only way a Muslim is guaranteed to go to heaven is if they die while waging jihad

      isn’t that also how the crusades worked?

      who came up w/ the idea first?

      1. I think the Vikings were the first group with a documented tradition of guaranteed heaven for those die in battle.

          1. The earliest forms of religion were ancestor worship, which evolved out of people hallucinating the voices of their leaders after they died. The conceptualization of an after life came from this biological experience.

            1. “The earliest forms of religion were ancestor worship, which evolved out of people manipulative leaders pretending to hear hallucinating the voices of their leaders after they died.”

            2. “The earliest forms of religion were ancestor worship”

              No, they weren’t.

        1. “Prehistoric” means we can find what someone wrote about that, so, given the common religious tropes (“the FLOOD”, “the end times”, “heaven for the worthy”, etc,) I’d be nervous about assigning the “first”.

          1. Sorry: “Prehistoric” means *earlier* than we can find (….)

      2. Jihad predates the Crusades, and at least according to the earliest source material on the Islamic conquests, right to the day of Mohammad. The idea was probably there, if not as large a factor as the source material makes it out. The form of Jihad preferred by the intellectual elite/court jesters has varied over time.

        1. The deal with the Crusades was that crusaders who *had properly repented their sins* – going to confession if they had the time – would not have to go to Purgatory, but would go straight to Heaven.

          On a related note, any penances they had been assigned for their sins – they didn’t have to do them any more, participating in a crusade was a sufficient replacement for the penance.

          Crusaders who died with unconfessed mortal sins would still go to hell like non-Crusaders.

  14. This isn’t exactly shocking. Is the quoted email really the most interesting one? If so this isn’t going to stir the election. At all.

    1. Yes. We all know what you are going to say – there is no way, zero, nada that Trump can win and anything that may increase hate of Hillary isn’t going to matter. No Bernie supporters, people already lacking motivation, hate Hillary, and are part of demographic groups that have low turnout could possibly be persuaded to stay away from the polls and tell the Dems to fuck off.

      The story is so minor, Bernie is completely silent on it. I’m sure it isn’t opening an old wound for him right as he was getting ready to shill for the cankled one.

      1. Well you got it right for once. Have a gold star.

      2. there is no way, zero, nada that Trump can win

        I don’t see that at all. But I’d be willing to listen if you tell us WHY he can’t win. Republicans had record turnout in the primaries and the Dems were way, way down from the last 2 election cycles. Hillary is currently down to a +2.7 point lead in the RPC average. That’s down more than 30 points from when the polling first started covering this election. Hell, it’s down nearly 10 points from a month ago. I don’t see the logic.

        1. RCP, not RPC.

        2. I was being sarcastic referencing Cytotoxic’s deluded arguments.

          1. Oh, ok. Why haven’t you blocked that troll? It has nothing useful to add to the conversation.

            1. Translation: “That meany keeps calling out my bullshit with facts and logic! GIVE ME BACK MY SAFE SPACE!”

        3. ” Republicans had record turnout in the primaries”

          Means nothing. Dukakis also had huge turnout. It should be noted that GOP turnout dwindled towards Indiana.

          “+2.7 point lead in the RPC average. That’s down more than 30 points from when the polling first started covering this election. Hell, it’s down nearly 10 points from a month ago. ”

          If you were able to read a graph, you’d note that she’s been here before only to leave Trump choking on the dust. You’d also notice Trump never gets very high; the only reason they are close at all is because Hillary bounces around.

          Trump’s internals are toxic. His negatives ensure that he has no path to the presidency. The EC math was always stacked in the Dem nominee’s favor.

          1. Just keep telling yourself that. Boy, are you going to be surprised.

            1. WHYCOME FAGGOT USE NUMBERS AND FACTS

              1. I’m voting for Johnson, but sometimes I want Trump to win just so I can watch you completely lose your shit.

                1. You think the Canadian will actually stick around after the Trump victory?

              2. Polls aren’t facts.

                1. Were they also “not facts” when Hyperion was using them in a pro-Trump argument, or only when Cyto uses them in an anti-Trump argument?

                  1. I’m not using anything as a pro-Trump argument. Merely stating facts.

              3. WHYCOME FAGGOT USE DNC TALKING POINTS?

        4. Turnout in the GOP primaries was high because Democrats knew that Hilary was going to win, and were crossing over in open primary states to vote for the one candidate Hillary can beat. They did the same thing in 2012 trying to get Santorum the nomination. It’s an old tactic.

          Democrat turnout in the general will be driven by anti-Trump animus, which of course wouldn’t drive turnout in the Dem primaries because he wasn’t running.

          1. So Hillary would be beaten by any of the other 17 GOP candidates who were steamrolled by Trump, but she will beat Trump? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. And I do remember the media saying Trump was the least likely of the 18 candidates, to win the nomination.

            The election will be close and could go either way.

          2. I think far more Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump because they are today’s “Reagan Democrats” who will vote for Trump in the general.

  15. Ooh, look: a montage of people, including a kid, denouncing Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbqw-yCdhNM

  16. Totally OT, since finding a fuck to give for Bern, the DNC. etc isn’t possible.
    SF has drastic rent control. As a result, rental owners are doing almost as well as the lawyers who are paid to navigate the regulations. Now comes Air BnB et al, and the SF government assholes are climbing all over each other trying to limit those uses to prove they are the friend of the parasitic renters who have the R/C units (and screw those who don’t):

    “As city lowers boom, Airbnb and rivals thrive”
    […]
    “Retired artists Toby Klayman and Joe Branchcomb, both 81, host on Airbnb. They’ve had “a fantastic amount of marvelous people stay in our spare room,” said Klayman, whose vivid abstracts decorate their longtime Bernal Heights home. “We absolutely love Airbnb. It impacts our style of living enormously to have an extra $1,600 a month or so to pay the bills.”
    http://projects.sfchronicle.co…..pid=gatehp (prolly pay-walled)

    “Retired” artists? Uh, was lifting the brush too much for you?
    Anyhow, at one time I counted 19 units in a block where we one property which had been removed from the rental market, most owned by those who count themselves ‘liberal’, but who decided it was entirely too much trouble to deal with the SF rental regulations.
    I now know a Bernie-Bro who rents AirBnB, claims Bernie’s got the answers and (hypocritically) ducks all the sign-ons and regulations.
    Where do black markets come from?

    1. Good gugu mugou.

      Unintended consequences, how does that shit even work?

    2. “”Retired” artists? Uh, was lifting the brush too much for you?”

      My Old Man has been painting since the early 1960s. He used to have his own spot in the Iowa State Capitol, where one of his paintings always hung. So, he was pretty damn good. Specialized in rural Midwestern scenes, birds and wildflowers. He’s 93. Still painting.

    3. Didn’t Barney Frank run a bnb?

      1. Thought that was a massage parlor.

    4. Vision. Fine motor control. Continence.

      Just a few things that might fade late in life and make painting difficult.

  17. Trump University Judge Says He Plans to Let Suit Go to Trial

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..t-go-ahead

    That’ll look great on his campaign. Is this a RICO suit?

    1. The system is rigged, folks. And that’s all that needs to be said.

    1. “It’s a close election right now.”

      LOL not according to your own models right now Nate.

      1. I respect Nate Silver a lot so I’m dissapointed to see him resort to patently pushed ‘horse-race’ narrative. Nate, come on, you don’t really believe this bullshit.

        1. Nate’s coming around to reality faster than you are.

          1. People in mental hospitals whacked out on thorozine are coming around to reality faster than he is.

            1. You’d think a guy he never eaves his grandmother’s basement in Canada would be an expert on all things related to American politics. And European immigration. And German terrorists.

              1. He honestly believes that you could replace the population of Canada with the combined populations of Somalia, Afghanistan and Syria and nothing would change. It is just amazing the shit he convinces himself and how tenaciously he clings to it.

                1. He’s a genius John, don’t question his brilliance.

                  1. What I want to know is, why does Cytotoxic continue to post here? Clearly his giant intellect is being wasted on us, so why continue to cast his pearls of wisdom before us swine? Why not go where his intellect can be truly appreciated? Perhaps Huffington Post.

                    1. At HuffPo, anyone with an IQ that can’t be counted on the fingers of one hand, is considered a genius. Really, all that happens on the forums there is that one of the top sycophants cut and pastes the latest DNC talking point and then 10,000 or so lower sycophants ‘like’ the post. Occasionally, one of the hive manages a one liner that’s some variation of something about Boosh, Rethuglicans, the Koch Brothers, Deniers, or Sarah Palin. That’s about it.

                    2. Really, all that happens on the forums there is that one of the top sycophants cut and pastes the latest DNC talking point and then 10,000 or so lower sycophants ‘like’ the post.

                      To be fair, that didn’t happen quite as often on articles regarding Hillary’s email crime spree. You’d have the occasional bot account or dessicated hippy Baby Boomer spouting the latest campaign talking point, but for the most part the comments there, including leftists, were pointing out that anybody else besides Clinton would be breaking big rocks into little rocks in Leavenworth.

      2. No, is not close at all. You don’t even have to go to the polls. Really, just don’t bother. Nobody is going to vote for Trump anyway. Hillary will win because she deserves it!

    2. http://projects.fivethirtyeigh…..-forecast/

      July 12: Trump 22.5%
      July 23: Trump 41.3%

      I’m sure that number will plummet once the public gets a good, long look at Hillary and her magnetic personality over the next four months of peace and prosperity. After all, with the media in her corner and the American public captive to its narrative, how could Trump possibly continue to gain ground, what with his charming kids (can we dump Trump and keep the children?) and a simmering nationalist anger in the public?

      RBG might take a look at some leases in Auckland just in case.

      1. I’m sure that number will plummet once the public gets a good, long look at Hillary and her magnetic personality over the next four months of peace and prosperity.

        They won’t. That’s Hillary’s (and more importantly, the media’s) plan. She’s going to make this a referendum on Trump.

        We’ve barely had a trickle out of money out of her multi-billion war chest, while the Trump campaign is starving for donations as most of the big GOP donors are staying away. This is Trump’s high point.

        1. Every time the media attacks him, people like him more. He’s anti-establishment. Having the folks considered part of the establishment rail against him just boosts his cred.

          1. That only works with anti-establishment types (and not all of them even). Most of the electorate is not anti-establishment.

            1. ” Most of the electorate is not anti-establishment.”

              Irrelevant. The independents and undecideds will decide this election. Those groups are more anti-establishment than the 25% R and 28% D’s.

        2. This is Trump’s high point

          You may be right, but we’ve been hearing this shit for a year and here he is with the Republican nomination.

      2. I’m sure that number will plummet once the public gets a good, long look at Hillary and her magnetic personality over the next four months of peace and prosperity.

        They won’t. That’s Hillary’s (and more importantly, the media’s) plan. She’s going to make this a referendum on Trump.

        We’ve barely had a trickle out of money out of her multi-billion war chest, while the Trump campaign is starving for donations as most of the big GOP donors are staying away. This is Trump’s high point.

      3. Trump really does surround himself with charming gracious people. Even his ex-wives come off as people without sour grapes (I’m guessing when he married them there was an understanding between both parties that it might not be forever, that or they really did split up on a good note).

      4. (can we dump Trump and keep the children?)

        Not Donald Trump Jr., man’s got the look of a Patrick Bateman-esque serial killer.

        I would not complain if I got to spend the next four months seeing Ivanka explain trade protectionism.

  18. Or maybe the Democratic party’s nomination process is rigged to favor members of the Democratic party.

  19. Ummm……..
    THE FUCKING SYSTEM IS RIGGED !!!!!

    1. So Alestorm’s cover of “Hangover” is pretty fucking rad.

      Cheers, Pyrate!

  20. That’s where he loaded his weapon,” she said. “I hear like an alarm and boom, boom, boom … and he’s still killing the children. The children were sitting to eat. They can’t run.”
    Lauretta said she heard the gunman say, “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great” in Arabic. “I know this because I’m Muslim. I hear this and I only cry.”

  21. ‘ But today the Twitter feed is silent about an email dump from Wikileaks that has grown more and more attention throughout the day.’

    ‘grown more and more attention’? English, how does it work?

  22. The Intercept contacted Marshall, who said he didn’t recall the email, but said it wouldn’t have been about Sanders but rather a “surrogate.”

    Such a weird and unnecessary lie.

    1. It is a funny lie. So what if it was a Sanders surrogate? I don’t think that makes slandering the person as a Godless commie Jew any better.

  23. So in a 5 paragraph article about 20,000 leaked e-mails that, in part, prove the DNC is in the tank for Hillary, the 4th and 5th words in the article are “Donald” and “Trump’s”.

    Is this a preview of what to expect next week?

    “While Donald Trump was taking a dump in his 35 million dollar penthouse, Bernie Supporters were denied access to the DNC convention.”

    1. I realize just seeing his name can drive people insane but maybe go back, read the article again and maybe see if you can grasp what Scott was saying.

      1. I understand, but my point stands. Anything negative about Hillary next week will be put in some type of Trumpian context. They either can’t help themselves or are purposely doing this, and all this does is help Trump, which I find hilarious.

        1. If Clinton does or says something negative, you don’t think it’s worth mentioning how it might help Trump’s campaign?

        2. purposely doing this

          You mean to imply that after Charles Koch publicly said that Hillary was preferable to Trump and Hillary made a show of rejecting the Koch’s “endorsement,” Reason’s staff might have been pressured to crank out all sorts of ridiculous Trump-hating bile to dissuade their libertarianish readership from aligning behind the nationalist, anti-NATO, critic of Bush-and-Hillary’s wars candidate like Rothbard did with Buchanan in 92?

          I cannot, nay, will not believe this. I won’t believe it even if one of Reason’s authors or interns anonymously uploaded a PDF confirming this bizarre suspicion to a vola room and posted the link in reply to this comment.

          1. Is Gary Johnson’s favorable treatment of Hillary also due to Koch’s prodding? Occam’s razor says it’s just Reason’s cosmo nature that’s responsible, not a Kochtopian conspiracy.

    2. The headlines will be something along the lines of

      Sanders supporters riot in Philadelphia reflecting the angry, violent political culture Donald Trump has created

      There will be some variation on that. You watch.

      1. I generally agree that Reason’s Trump coverage is way over the top but I think Scott makes an interesting point here, even if it’s unintentional: Democrats are so concerned with whatever Trump says/does that they either don’t see or are willfully blind to their own party’s bullshit. Of course, Sanders will be written off as “not really a Democrat anyway.”

        1. I think you are right. Scott is being reasonable here. But I still won’t be surprised if reason runs some variation of my headline next week.

    3. Context not important. Donald Trump mentioned. Initiate screeching.

  24. This is one of the least surprising Wikileaks dumps ever. Talk about dog bites man.

    1. Dog bites bitch?

  25. Hey, even a broken clock and all that…

  26. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 97usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    Go to the web————-> http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  27. Politico: Top DNC staffer apologizes for email on Sanders’ religion

    In a copy of a Facebook post provided by a source, Marshall said that he “deeply” regrets his “insensitive, emotional emails.” His Facebook page, upon searching, is private, and the statement is the only content viewable to the public.

    The entire Facebook post: “I deeply regret that my insensitive, emotional emails would cause embarrassment to the DNC, the Chairwoman, and all of the staffers who worked hard to make the primary a fair and open process. The comments expressed do not reflect my beliefs nor do they reflect the beliefs of the DNC and its employees. I apologize to those I offended.”

  28. Let me guess, Hillary had her people running the server

  29. Um, no need for scare quotes. The system is, in fact, rigged.

  30. Yes, Bill Clinton refused Secret Service protection so he could fly on a plane with underage prostitutes.


  31. I quit my nine to five work and now I am making85 dollars hourly. …How? I am freelancing online from my home! My old workwas bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two yrs have passed sinceAnd I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here is what i do?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax90.com

  32. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.