Thursday, December 24, 2015

Anonymous Gives 10 Reasons For Backing Bernie Sanders - Speaks Against Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton

By Danny Cox

Anonymous Bernie Sanders Donald Trump
Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images
The different candidates in the 2016 presidential election all have backing from different people, different groups, and different supporters. When it comes time for the final vote tallies to be made, the bigger the group of supporters, the more votes that can come in. Well, Bernie Sanders may have just gotten the biggest boost when the the backing collective known as Anonymous backed the Democratic candidate and gave 10 reasons for it.

Meanwhile, they spoke out against other candidates, most notably Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Anonymous took to their website to list the ten reasons that will convince voters that they should cast their ballot for Bernie Sanders. Not only is Anonymous looking to get people to vote for Sanders, but they feel he deserves much more mainstream media coverage as well.

Each of their reasons are explicitly detailed get people to see what Sanders and his campaign are all about. Some of the reasons that are easier to put forth are that he wants to break up big banks and that he opposes both the TPP and NAFTA.

Anonymous has been known for numerous things over the past years; some have been considered good and some have been considered bad. They’ve also been blamed for a lot of things that never ended up being their fault whatsoever.

Still, they may have some incredibly detailed points about backing and voting for Bernie Sanders. At the same time, they are making sure to point out that the other two leading candidates to capture the presidency are doing some things in the exactly opposite fashion.

Not always, though.

Anonymous gives the reasoning of “decriminalizing the use of marijuana” as a reason for backing Sanders. They also let it be known that Clinton is against decriminalizing it while Trump is more in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical uses.

donald trump bernie sanders anonymous
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
One thing that is really bothering Anonymous is the lack of mainstream coverage that Bernie Sanders is getting while Donald Trump gets much more even though they are polling similarly. Anonymous believes the mainstream media hates Sanders and actually censors him so it looks like he endorses Clinton.

According to the Hill, a recent poll from Quinnipiac University shows that Bernie Sanders actually demolishes Donald Trump in a general election, and it wasn’t even close. Sanders actually had a 13 percentage point victory over Trump in that poll by way of 51 percent to 38 percent.

When detailing their 10 reasons for backing Bernie Sanders, Anonymous focuses a lot on how much he doesn’t discriminate.
“Sanders doesn’t degrade racial and religious minorities, nor does he inflame the majority- he comes right out and tells us that the elite are to blame. He said this at a rally: ‘they’re always playing one group against another. Rich got richer — everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together’. Hillary has an “abysmal” racial justice record and Trump… well, he’s said enough about that topic to fill a phone book.”
As a bonus, Anonymous says that for every list that comes out telling people not to vote for Sanders, it actually brings him more attention and supporters.

Bernie Sanders has seen his support grow in the 2016 presidential polls over the past few months, and Hillary Clinton has seen hers drop some. Donald Trump has kept a consistently big lead in the GOP race, but many say he would get destroyed by the Democratic candidate. The backing of Anonymous for Sanders may have simply pushed his support even higher.

[Image by PYMCA and Getty Images]

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Ted Cruz Busted On Secret Tape Admitting That His Core Positions Are Fake

By Jason Easley

cruz-pout

In a secret recording, Ted Cruz admitted that he doesn’t really believe what he is trying to sell to Republican voters and that if elected president, a Cruz administration would not fight same-sex marriage. He also backed off of his positions on issues like abortion and common core.

Politico released more of the secret tape of Ted Cruz talking to donors at a New York fundraiser, and it confirmed what many have long suspected. Sen. Cruz is faking it to get elected.



According to Politico:

During the question period, one of the donors told Cruz that gay marriage was one of the few issues on which the two disagreed. Then the donor asked: “So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you — fighting gay marriage?”

“No,” Cruz replied. “I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum — whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty.”

Soothing the attendee without contradicting what he has said elsewhere, Cruz added: “People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states — to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”
….
A well-known Republican operative not affiliated with a 2016 campaign said by email when sent Cruz’s quote: “Wow. Does this not undermine all of his positions? Abortion, Common Core — all to the states? … Worse, he sounds like a slick D.C. politician — says one thing on the campaign trail and trims his sails with NYC elites. Not supposed to be like that.”

Ted Cruz’s top priority has always been advancing his own career, so it isn’t much of a surprise that the positions that he is selling Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina aren’t the same as what he is telling people behind closed doors.

Hold on to your hats, because it turns out that Ted Cruz plays fast and loose with the truth.

Anyone who has followed Cruz’s rise already is well aware that the senator from Texas has treated facts like an unnecessary detail; the secret tape is devastating for his presidential campaign because it undermines Ted Cruz’s trustworthiness with his own voters.

What may work in Cruz’s favor is that he can attack the messenger and claim that the Politico story is more media bias and proof that the press is out to get him, but a tape of his own voice denying the same positions that he is selling to conservative voters across the country is devastating.

Ted Cruz is a fake. He is exactly what he has been telling socially conservative Republican primary voters that he isn’t. Sen. Cruz is nothing more than another ambitious DC insider who say whatever he needs to say to get elected.

The Return Of The Screen Savers

By

If you were lucky enough to have cable TV back in 1998, you may remember a fledgling channel called “TechTV.” The crown jewel of the network was a show called “The Screen Savers.”

Well, recently the TWiT Network has relaunched the show (without the partnership or permission from the old producers) as “The New Screen Savers” – and it’s almost exactly as we remembered it. The show features tech news, tip and tricks – starring Leo Laporte as the main host.

We’ll assume that most readers are at a level of knowledge above what’s generally presented in the show, but we have to admit that we almost always find some little tech tip or software review that we didn’t know about. And if you know someone who is starting to take an interest in all things tech, this might be a great way for them to start learning quickly – and to gain exposure to a wide variety of topics.

If you’re looking for a bit of nostalgia, many of the co-hosts of the old show return regularly. People like Kevin Rose, Patrick Norton and Sarah Lane. You can watch the show on the TWiT site or on YouTube.  

Monday, December 21, 2015

Colombians Are Not Very Happy With Steve Harvey Right Now


On Sunday night, the host of the Miss Universe pageant, Steve Harvey, made the biggest mistake the host of the Miss Universe pageant can possibly make: He crowned Miss Colombia,  Ariadna Gutierrez, as the winner, before coming back on stage, apologizing, dethroning Gutierrez, and crowning the real winner, Miss Philippines, Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach, in what was the most awkward two minutes of live television since Kanye’s infamous “Imma let you finish.”


Sunday, December 20, 2015

Carly Fiorna and Jeb Bush brutally mocked in SNL GOP debate as all 9 candidates get skewered

By Tom Boggioni

On the evening of the last Democratic presidential debate of 2015, Saturday Night Live instead looked back at the last GOP debate with all nine candidates represented — but with ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former-HP CEO Carly Fiorina on the receiving end of the most brutal mockery.

Taron Killiam’s Ted Cruz was suitably smarmy, admitting that everybody –Democrats and Republicans alike — hates him because he has a “punchable face.”

Darrell Hammond’s Donald Trump was very Trump-esque, continually insulting Beck Bennett’s jittery and frantic Jeb Bush.

After a sniveling Bush complains that Trump is a bully trying to “insult his way into the White House,” Trump returns fire.

“Oh realy, jughead?’ Trump replies. “Cuz I’m at 43 and you’re at three — Jeb, you’re a nice guy, but you’re a lightweight, and I know for a fact that you pee sitting down.”

Cast member Cecily Strong turned in a brutal take down of Fiorina, as she explained that she knows Russian strongman Valimir Putin because she once sold him an HP printer.

“I know Valdimir Putin personally,” she claimed. “I sold him an HP printer and now he hates my guts. It doesn’t work, it never worked. And when Putin calls me to complain, I just smile that classic Carly Fiorina smile,” she continued while grimacing painfully.

Watch the video below from Saturday Night Live:

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Highlights Of Third Democratic Debate

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley had heated exchanges on issues such as foreign policy on Saturday in Manchester, N.H., during the third Democratic presidential debate.

How To Hack Your 360

So you want to hack your XBox 360.

Have no idea where to start?

This thread should give you a general idea on what you can do with your 360.

Fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz

By




2015-12-18-1450475625-2594400-DebbieWassermanSchultzHillaryClinton.jpg
It's increasingly clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, isn't acting as a neutral party Chair, trying to insure a fair and democratic primary and building the Democratic Party in the states.

Rather, she's acting as a shill for Hillary Clinton, doing everything in her power to ensure that no one will effectively challenge Hillary's coronation as the nominee.

Wasserman Schultz is committing political malpractice and should be removed.

Remember that Wasserman Schultz was National Co-Chair of Hillary's 2008 Presidential campaign against Barack Obama and has been a loyal Clinonista. Her actions throughout the campaign have made it clear that she's misusing her position as party chair to serve as a campaign operative for Clinton and not a representative of the entire party.

Her latest travesty is being prosecutor, judge and jury, imposing the death penalty on Bernie Sanders' campaign for, at worst, a minor misdemeanor which hasn't even been proven.

On Thursday, Bernie Sanders had the best day of his campaign, receiving the endorsement of the 700,000 member Communications Workers of America, the grassroots Democracy for America, and surpassing 2,000,000 individual contributions.

On Friday, Wasserman Schultz suspended the Sanders campaign's access to its own data in the DNC database, making it impossible for the Sanders campaign to contact potential voters only weeks before the crucial Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary. As I write, the Sanders campaign has been forced to go into Federal Court to get back its data, creating a fight that can only hurt the Democratic Party.

Sanders' offense? A breach in the DNC's voter database managed by a private contractor hired by Wasserman Schultz, which allowed a handful of Sanders campaign staff to get a peak at Clinton voter data for two hours. There's no evidence that they did anything untoward with the data and the breach was quickly closed.

No matter. Wasserman Schultz crippled the Sanders campaign and virtually invited the press to question Sanders' honesty and integrity at Saturday's Democratic debate. Few doubt that Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in the nation. But Wasserman Schultz managed to pour dirt over him.

And speaking of the debate, why did Wasserman Schultz schedule it for the Saturday night before Christmas, at one of the least-watched times on television, virtually guaranteeing low ratings?

As I previously wrote, the DNC under Wasserman Schultz wants to guarantee that as few people as possible actually watch the Democrats' own debates!

Hillary's campaign wanted as few debates as possible to prevent her lesser-known opponents from getting free television exposure. DNC limited debates to six, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign that nominated Barack Obama, and 12 Republican debates this campaign season.

So far, more than 68 million viewers have watched the Republican debates while less than 24 million people have watched the Democratic debates.

Wasserman Schultz may think she's protecting Hillary by denying her Democratic opponents the chance to be seen by more voters. But whomever the Democratic nominee is, she's guaranteeing that during this primary season, far more people get to hear the Republican message than the Democratic message. The Republicans have used the debates to ramp up the fear factor in the American public, which is likely to help them in the general election, even as the Democrats have largely remained on the sidelines and Obama's approval ratings have plummeted.

And if Hillary wins the nomination but Bernie's millions of supporters feel he's been treated unfairly, many will stay home on election day, making it more like the Republicans will win.

If Hillary is the nominee and loses to the Republican candidate, Wasserman Schultz's "hide the Hillary strategy" will have contributed to the Republican victory.

Wasserman Shultz's strategy of putting her heavy thumb on the scales to help Hillary is almost as bad as the Republican strategy of suppressing the vote.

In any case, it's political malpractice. Wasserman Schultz must go.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Move On has a petition to remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Click here to sign.
 

UPDATE 2: Robert Reich has a petition up on Democracy for America demanding that Debbie Wasserman Shultz restore the Sanders campaign's access to it own voter data. Click here to sign.

Friday, December 18, 2015

DNC Suspends Bernie Sanders Staffer, Crippling His Campaign – This Is Some Jerry Springer Shit

Written by Rika Christensen on December 18, 2015

The Democratic National Committee has dealt a major blow to Bernie Sanders’ campaign after a data glitch allowed the campaign to access some of Hillary Clinton’s campaign data. One of Bernie’s staffers did so, and was immediately fired for it. It was Sanders’ campaign itself that alerted the DNC to the security problem, and they suspended his access to their master voter file in response.

This really looks like an ambush. Suspending him from the master voter file prevents his campaign from being able to reach out to voters in ways like knocking on doors and making phone calls, which is stuff all campaigns do. Seeing as how Sanders’ campaign has already performed the necessary actions, there was really no reason to do this.

It could appear to be sabotage. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC’s chair, has long been under fire for attempting to rig things in Hillary’s favor. Hillary is the presumptive nominee without any machinations like that, and yet, things like limiting the number of officially sanctioned debates to six, barring candidates that appear in unofficial debates from participating, and scheduling debates to coincide with major events like NCAA football games, paint a grim picture.

The vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program keeps screwing up. Michael Briggs, a communications aide for Bernie’s campaign, said in a statement:
“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns. At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
So others have had access, and nothing’s been done. It’s not known if others made use of that access, but it appears it has happened before (the vendor actually claims that this is an isolated incident).

However, Sanders’ campaign accidentally gets access, one staffer misuses it, gets fired, the campaign reports the problem, and gets suspended indefinitely. Why? There is no reason for this, unless the DNC is really that scared that Bernie will win the primary.

The Republican National Committee is terrified of a Trump or Cruz nomination, and for good reason. Neither of those two has the experience—or really, the wherewithal—to be president. They’re both nuts. They’ll run the country into the ground in their first 100 days. The only possible reason the DNC would ever have to be scared of a Sanders nomination is how he polls against any of the GOP candidates. He polls pretty well.

Politico says that Wasserman Schultz is one of the last Hillary allies sticking to her from 2008. The Huffington Post published an article that drew an unsavory connection between the DNC and Hillary; the underlying rationale behind limiting debates may have to do with trying to shield Hillary from having to answer really uncomfortable questions too many times. That could give Democratic voters even less reason to trust her. This strategy would help Hillary…and hurt Bernie.

That could be heavily influencing what the DNC is doing to Bernie now. Since the Sanders campaign acted appropriately when it discovered both the glitch and the fact that one of its own staffers had wrongfully accessed Hillary’s campaign data, it looks like the DNC was looking for an excuse to cripple Sanders’ campaign.

And crippled it will be if they don’t lift this suspension as soon as possible. Bernie needs the master voter file for his campaign to even be able to function. The DNC knows that. This is just plain low.

Could Trump cost GOP Congress?

There's growing worry among Main Street Republicans that Donald Trump could tank their chances of keeping control of Congress. Republican Senators in key swing states are bracing themselves for what's being called "Trump Shrapnel". MSNBC’s Robert Costa and Washington Examiner’s David Drucker discuss.



Federal charges for 'Pharma Bro'

Alex Wagner looks at the downfall of Martin Shkreli, the fool who jacked up the price of a life-saving AIDS drug by 5,000%.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

700,000 Member Union Endorses Bernie Sanders

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is set to pick up one of his biggest endorsements yet Thursday from the powerful Communications Workers of America union, sources told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

The group represents some 700,000 workers nationally, making it by far the largest union to back Sanders yet. CWA’s endorsement, which will be announced at a press conference at 11:00 a.m. Thursday at the union’s headquarters in Washington, comes as Sanders has lost out on a string of major union endorsements to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, whose campaign now claims the support of unions representing 12 million workers. 

Larry Cohen, CWA’s former president, joined Sanders’ campaign as a top labor adviser shortly after stepping down in June. The union has been hinting a possible Sanders endorsement for months, saying the decision would come only after members voted in an online poll. The national union did not issue an endorsement in the 2008 Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

With only two members of Congress in his corner, this is one of Sanders’ most important endorsements yet. CWA boasts it has more than 300,000 active and retired members in the states that hold primaries and caucuses between now and April 1, whom could be mobilized to support Sanders.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Random Observations On Last Night's GOP Hate Fucking Of America

Posted By Rude One

1. At the outset of the Republican debate on CNN last night, moderator Wolf "Rejoice in My White Stubble of Journalistic Integrity" Blitzer informed the candidates, "You all have different approaches to keeping the country safe. And that will be the focus of tonight's debate." Yet for a debate on "the security of this nation," the threats discussed were few and, frankly, exceedingly rare. Chances are pretty damn good that you're never going to be attacked by a radical Muslim extremist terrorist super-villain flying Godzilla or whatever the fuck we're supposed to be afraid of.

In fact, most of the things that are actual threats to the vast majority of Americans were either ignored or barely mentioned last night. Here's a short list of Things That Are Way More Likely to Kill You Than Muslim Terrorists or Hispanic Immigrants. These are the real threats to national security:

a. Christian white men with guns. Hell, you could probably just say, "All the fucking guns," and leave it at that. Not once did domestic terrorism from white people get mentioned, and that's probably because we still have a bizarre inability to label shit like Sandy Hook or the Planned Parenthood shooting "terrorism." And gun deaths in general are the security threat that Republicans dare not speak of.

b. Climate change is going to murder the fuck out of millions of people, barring drastic action. And it is going to propel the citizens of poor nations to ever-increasing acts of desperation, which will lead to more terrorism, which we'll probably deal with by bombing the famine-fucked or drowning nations.

c. Infrastructure collapsing around us. The Department of Transportation estimates that 14,000 people are killed annually due to shitty roads and bridges. By the Rude Pundit's mystical mathematical abilities, that adds up to...carry the three...a fuckload more people dying from the failure to invest in infrastructure than from every terrorist attack on the U.S. in the last, hell, let's say 100 years.

To his credit (yes, to his fucking credit), Donald Trump actually said, referring to trillions of dollars wasted on the Iraq war, "I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart." And Carly Fiorina immediately hiked up her skirt and took a piss all over the sentiment: "That is exactly what President Obama said. I'm amazed to hear that from a Republican presidential candidate." Yeah, fuck our aging electrical grid and water systems. There are Muslims overseas who need to taste American missile justice.

d. And, to his credit (yes, to his fucking credit), John "Shakey Buckeye" Kasich said, "The first thing we better get going is strengthening our economy, because if we don't have a strong economy, we can't pay for all of this," which was one of the only times anyone acknowledged that economic insecurity is an actual threat. Not a one of the others even indicated that all the shit they wanna do would cost barrels of cash that you're not gonna get from tax cuts.

So, really, you could say that the entire debate was theater. It was like a bunch of high schoolers telling each other their favorite creepypastas while sharing some cheap wine they stole from their moms. Ooh, who's gonna scare us worse? Even though, at the end of the night, Slender Man is fuckin' fake and drunk driving is real, but guess which one they're afraid of?

2. The creepiest moment last night wasn't Chris Christie's giant, scarred melon head staring directly at the camera. No, it was Ben Carson comparing killing children in war to operating on children with tumors. Asked by lipless, dead-eyed ghoul Hugh Hewitt if he could order air strikes that "would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands," Carson said, as terrifyingly calmly as if he were ordering a sandwich at Subway, "Well, interestingly enough, you should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them we're going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor. They're not happy about it, believe me. And they don't like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me."

This led to applause from the barbaric crowd. Carson continued, "You know, later on, you know, they really realize what's going on. And by the same token, you have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it's actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks." In other words, Carson will dispassionately bomb the fuck out of any country with no care about the civilian casualties.

That's almost as scary as Ted Cruz's whole "Fuck everyone, I'm nukin' shit" approach to war. And, between them, they're like 10,000 pricks combined.

3. Poor Jeb Bush stands there looking like a fading porn star who keeps getting cast in flicks even though he can't get a hard-on anymore. Oh, sure, they use Cialis or fluffers to try to suck him into an erection, but, in the end, he can only manage to slap his dick around a pussy for a little while before he's too exhausted to continue. Everyone wonders why the fuck he's still doing this, but he has nowhere else to go.

4. There's a level at which these candidates have gone beyond parody. Christie tried to make Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton into some kind of America-wrecking Decepticon, saying at the beginning, "America has been betrayed. We've been betrayed by the leadership that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have provided to this country over the last number of years," and never really making another point besides that for the rest of the debate. Someone ought to remind him that Obama was elected twice by a pretty decent margin.

In particular, Christie was a fucking joke, preening and prancing for the voters. In his opening remarks, he said, "The second largest school district in America in Los Angeles closed based on a threat. Think about the effect that, that's going to have on those children when they go back to school tomorrow wondering filled with anxiety to whether they're really going to be safe. Think about the mothers who will take those children tomorrow morning to the bus stop wondering whether their children will arrive back on that bus safe and sound. Think about the fathers of Los Angeles, who tomorrow will head off to work and wonder about the safety of their wives and their children."

First of all, you can bet the people of New Jersey thought, "Could you spend a little fucking time thinking about us?" And, of course, there's the fact that the whole thing was a hoax and that New York City got the same fucking threat and decided it was pretty clearly bullshit, so it wasn't actually a "threat." It was, more accurately, a "prank." And the kids? Dude, those kids weren't traumatized by anyone but the desperate politicians fanning a spark of anxiety into a full-fledged fear freakout inferno.

And then there was Christie's pledge that he'd shoot down Russian planes that crossed into any no-fly zone he established over Syria as president. Rand Paul, once again playing the role of bullshit-detector, pretty much destroyed Christie with a single line, "Well, I think if you're in favor of World War III, you have your candidate."

5. In the end, the debate was not just a pathetic contest to see who could make more Americans shit themselves in terror, but it was a night of craven chest-thumping, trying to prove who would be the superhero to stand firm and prevent the hordes of terrorists and immigrants and Hottentots from overrunning the country.

They repeated the same shit over and over. Trump was the most over the top with the tautology of his rhetoric, saying he wants to make America great again so he can make America great again or something. Who knows what the fuck that crazy motherfucker would really do other than lie to us about how shit's out of control? He looked like he wanted to face fuck Jeb, which was awesome.

Fiorina tried to show she's the cruelest motherfucker of the bunch. Rubio tried to make up for his slightly less-savage view of immigration (which Paul called "amnesty," even though it isn't close) by saying he'd fuckin' kill everyone, he's a madman, you can't stop him. Kasich was present.

Man, ISIS members must have been laughing their asses off.

6. The most telling thing of the night is how none of the candidates, beyond Lindsey Graham at the junion debate, would say that something is genuinely beyond the pale. Oh, sure, they'll dis Trump for his bugfuckery on Muslim immigration. But not one of them would say that anything is too much. None of them would dare say, "You know what? If Donald Trump is the nominee, fuck it. I'll stay home on election day." They don't have to say they'd vote for Hillary or Bernie. But have the fucking balls to say that some things are so appalling that you can't condone them.

For all the bluster last night, courage was sorely lacking.

7. Somewhere, there might be a country of cowards and murderers that the GOP candidates can lead. Unfortunately, they're stuck with the United States, which is nothing like that other country. And last night, the Republicans could only smirk as they hate-fucked the nation to show them who's boss.

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas: The Republican Debate

By Robert Borosage

It was showtime in the Republican debate last night in Las Vegas. Hysteria was the coin of the table. 

Carpet-bomb ISIS. Take out Assad. Destroy Iran. Shoot down Russian planes. Launch cyberwar against China. Expand the Army, Navy, Air Force; modernize nuclear weapons on land, sea and air. Spy on everyone. Build walls, close the doors on refugees. The only thing we have to fear is insufficient fear itself.

CNN marketed hysteria to promote last night’s debate. And, in the wake of Paris and San Bernardino, it isn’t surprising the Republican candidates rose to the bait.

Stuff and nonsense abounded. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton “betrayed America.” (Chris Christie). America’s military has been “destroyed.” (Marco Rubio) Ted Cruz seems to think that “radical Islamic terrorism” would be dramatically impacted if only the president would “utter its name.” Marco Rubio argues that there were “no alternative groups to be reinforced” in Syria because the “president led from behind.” [Rubio is the master of uttering utter nonsense with glib authority.] 

Carly Fiorina argues we’d have caught the Tsarnaev brothers who attacked the Boston Marathon except we were using the “wrong algorithms.” Chris Christie suggests that the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is somehow like McArthur on the bridge. Kasich wants a “massive” invasion of Syria, while “punching Russia in the nose.” Christie promises to shoot down Russian airplanes. Fiorina promises not to talk with Vladimir Putin until she rebuilds the Sixth Fleet, among many other preconditions.

Rand Paul, who remarkably was a voice of relative reason most of the night, got it right. He skewered Christie’s inanity about shooting down Russian planes with “I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”

Jeb Bush, who was the only candidate willing to take on Donald Trump directly, delivered a prepared but good line: Calling Trump the “chaos candidate,” he quipped, “Donald, you’re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency. That’s not going to happen.”

Only that could easily apply to the whole gaggle.

The Trump Effect

Trump was better than normal at first, but faded over time as he often does. Bush challenged him directly, but the other candidates largely directed their fire at one another rather than the front-runner. 

Jeb’s gibe that Trump gets his briefings “from the shows” hit home as Trump clearly had no clue about what the nuclear triad was when he was asked which arm (bombers, submarines or land missiles) he would “modernize” first. Preening like the teacher’s favorite at the front of the class, Rubio then explained what the triad was and, characteristically, argued that all of it had to be modernized, as if the U.S. didn’t already have more nuclear weapons than needed to blow up the world.

Trump is an ignorant bigot. But there is no question that he sets the tone, and his rivals scramble to catch up. He pledges to build a wall, and now all of them dutifully call for strengthening the “fence.” 

He wants to halt admission of any non-American Muslims temporarily. And now more and more call for a “pause” or shutting off refugees from anywhere ISIS or al Qaeda operate. He promises to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS. And now they all strain to be tougher than thou. Trump leads the race to the bottom in the Republican campaign, but his rivals are intent on keeping pace.

Regime Change

In the midst of the hyperbole, a serious debate managed to break out. Rand Paul argued forcefully that the bipartisan excitement about toppling dictators – in Iraq, in Libya and now in Syria – has had calamitous results, leading to failed states, violence and chaos in which terrorist groups like ISIS can thrive. “Out of regime change you get chaos,” Paul argued, “from the chaos you have seen repeatedly the rise of radical Islam.” Paul was backed by Trump, and Cruz. They argue, in Trump’s sensible words, “that we should do one thing at a time.” Take on ISIS first, and not push to dislodge Assad. 

Implicitly, although none would say it, form a partnership with Russia, Syria, Iran and our Sunni and European allies to destroy ISIS, rather than fighting against both sides of a complex civil war.

Against this, Rubio, Christie, Kasich and Fiorina offered bluster. America could take on ISIS, Assad, Iran, Russia and China if only it had a president who would not “lead from behind,” who believed in America. “All of our wounds can be healed,” Fiorina promised, “by a tested leader who is willing to fight for the character of our nation,” whatever the hell that means.

Prudence generally does not fare well against bluster and muscle flexing. But last night, the hearty viewers who survived the first hour got a dose of common sense amid the posturing. The media reviews suggest that Rubio got the best of Cruz in their exchanges. But I suspect Cruz will fare well among conservatives – and may have, alas, greater reach among independents – with his arguments about “focusing on the bad guys” both at home rather than trampling the privacy of “innocent Americans, and abroad rather than “getting distracted” by thinking we can spread democracy by dropping a few bombs.

Who Won and Who Lost

Rand Paul was forceful and clear for much of the night, but is going nowhere. Fiorina and Kasich, as Trump would say, “don’t matter.” Carson continues to appear lost on the stage.

Bush had a relatively strong night, willing to go after and stand up to Trump, but it is likely too late for him. Christie was the most bellicose and the most disingenuous. He might get another look in New Hampshire.

Of the leaders, Trump’s ignorance was exposed once more, but then it always is and hasn’t mattered. Rubio was glib as always, silver-tongued despite his five o’clock shadow and his dry mouth. But he comes off as callow and thin, confidently saying things that simply aren’t true out of ignorance or dishonesty. Cruz’s filibusters were irritating, and his face is a cartoonist’s dream. He is almost universally hated by his colleagues, but he emerges from this debate stronger than ever.

As always, the first casualty of the debate was the truth. The fact is that America has the most powerful military in the world. Our domestic security capacities are greater than ever. Our intelligence agencies suffer from collecting too much data not too little. Our allies get a free ride. We lack not weaponry but wisdom. We suffer from the bipartisan presumption that we are the indispensable nation able to police the world. We will control the Persian Gulf, press NATO to the borders of Russia, surround China with troops and fleets, intervene constantly in far corners of the world and then be constantly surprised at the blowback.

Republicans scorn the real and present threat of catastrophic climate change, even as its cost in lives and resources soars. We have a debate on national security without even mention of the global stagnation that now threatens a return to global recession or worse. These candidates bray about spending more on a military that is the most powerful in the world while—other than Donald Trump –ignoring the reality that we aren’t making the investments at home vital to our economy and society.
It remains to be seen which candidate, if any, benefits from the dustup. But we already know that the Republic fared poorly.

10 Biggest Lies And Distortions From The GOP Debate

Terror panic always brings out the biggest bullshitters.

By Adam Johnson

Another GOP debate, another steaming pile of half-truths, lies and pseudo-facts. The Republican Party seems to be almost entirely post-truth at this point, and if you call them out, you're the liberal media! It's a brilliant racket and one that led us to the current state of affairs where facts aren't just dispensable, but a political liability. Without further ado, here are the top lies and distortions from last night's debate.

1. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz: "We cannot vet refugees."
A popular refrain in the wake of the Paris and San Bernadino attacks is that the U.S. government (or more specifically President Obama) cannot properly vet Syrian refugees. This has been repeatedly debunked as hysterical posturing, yet remains a popular trope among the far right. In addition to a rather thorough takedown by John Oliver two weeks ago, PoliticoFact rated this claim, "Mostly False" in its detailed analysis this evening.

2. Marco Rubio claims Assad created ISIS.
This is an old canard, and one that even nominally lefty outlets like Vox like to push, but it has little to do with reality. In an effort to shore up his neocon credentials, Rubio has doubled down on regime change in Syria while other GOP candidates like Paul and Cruz - as well as Bernie Sanders - have run away from this position. To do this Rubio has pushed the conspiracy theory that the reason ISIS grew in Syria is because the U.S. didn't back the rebels opposed to Assad when in fact the CIA, according to documents revealed by Edward Snowden, spent $1 billion a year arming, funding and assisting the opposition.

3. Donald Trump cites bogus poll that 25% of Muslims condone acts of violence.
A popular trope among the nativist wing of the Republican Party (aka the Republican Party), the bogus stat that 25% of Muslins support violence is thrown around quite often. But it originates from noted Islamophobic "think tank" Center for Security Policy. As the New York Times notes:
Mr. Trump vouched for the group at a rally on Monday night. But the poll — conducted by the Polling Company, a Republican firm — is in no way truly representative of all Muslim Americans because of its methodology. The poll was not based on a random sample, but included only people who chose to participate, and therefore is not representative of the population being studied. In addition, some of the questions were leading and biased.
4. Chris Christie insists he was appointed U.S. Attorney on Sept 10, 2001.
Why does Christie keep repeating this lie? It's been debunked several times and it's a matter of public record. It's a great soundbite to be sure, and if true, would put Christie in the heart of the most significant foreign policy crisis of the past 20 years. But the reality is that George W. Bush nominated Christie on Dec. 7, 2001, as one can clearly see from a White House press release.

5. Ted Cruz claims George W. Bush deported 10 million people.
Geroge W. Bush deported 1.8 million people. Obama deported 2 million. It's unclear where Cruz is getting this number from.

6. Donald Trump keeps saying he self-funds, but we know that's demonstrably false.
This is another assertion that's completely disproven and easily searchable online (which raises the question of why CNN hasn't bothered doing this). Trump has received, according to the last available FEC filings, upward of $3.9 million from individual donors compared to using only $101,000 of his own money. How does this fit with his "self-funded" narrative? It's unclear, but perhaps a more urgent question is why would any sane person donate money to someone who claims to have over $10 billion?

7. Moderator lie: CNN's Wolf Blitzer claimed terrorism fears are higher than they've been since 9/11.
That's not true. A recent Gallup poll shows terrorism fears have spiked recently, but are the same as in 2005 and nowhere near as high as after 9/11.

8. Lie by omission: Why was the attack on Planned Parenthood not mentioned in a debate about terrorism?
As Sean McElwee of Demos noted, in a debate that was nominally about "terrorism," non-Muslim terrorism was completely absent. The recent Planned Parenthood terrorist attack carried out by a man who claims to be a "warrior for babies" wasn't discussed in the broader context of terrorism. Why this is so remains unclear.

9. Lie by cliche: What the hell is Fiorina talking about?
Fiorina keeps referencing "building up the sixth fleet" because presumably it sounds like some important walk-and-talk dialogue in the West Wing, but it actually makes no sense. Several experts have chimed in on this strange refrain and pointed out that it's basically nonsense. As military magazine Stars and Stripes noted:
Her meaning wasn’t immediately clear — the U.S. 6th Fleet is less a collection of ships than a command structure for operating American warships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Moreover, the fleet is one of the few growing military commands in Europe. It is building land-based missile interceptor sites in Romania and Poland, and in the coming days it will welcome the last of four guided-missile destroyers to arrive for permanent stationing in Rota, Spain.
10. Several candidates keep claiming the Iran deal "gives $150 billion to Iran."
As the LA Times notes, it's not "giving" $150 billion to Iran, it's relieving sanctions that will ultimately unfreeze more than $150 billion in assets to Iran, but the funds were already Iran's to begin with. No one is "giving" Iran anything.

Adam Johnson is an associate editor at AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter at @adamjohnsonnyc.

Bernie Sanders Is Tiptoeing All The Way To The White House

By Brian Hanley

Bernie Sanders is officially catching fire. After delivering two strong debate performances, the 74 year old Senator dominated nearly every online poll that asked viewers to choose a winner of the second Democratic contest. He now holds a commanding lead over Hillary Clinton in the key state of New Hampshire and continues to gain momentum in Iowa. Most recently, Sanders won the readers' poll for TIME Person of the Year by a landslide and scored major endorsements by UFC fighter Ronda Rousey and rapper-activist Killer Mike. This week, Sanders is on target to shatter his most monumental record to date: hitting two million individual, small-dollar contributions, more than any other presidential candidate in US history.

However, you wouldn't know that Sanders is making history if you turned on the television. Despite the Senator's latest accomplishments, he still struggles to garner any meaningful attention from the mainstream media. ABC World News Tonight, for example, has allocated a mere 20 seconds to covering the Sanders campaign, while spending over 80 minutes talking about Donald Trump.

Similarly, CBS set aside just six minutes to covering Sanders and NBC Nightly News spent less than three.

As Trump storms his way through the primaries, Sanders, by contrast, tiptoes. Though the Senator continues to attract massive crowds across the country, he does so quietly, without substantial coverage from the major networks. The question is, can any candidate, even one as popular as Sanders, prevail with such limited press? Or will the corporate media's obsession with Donald Trump overshadow and ultimately undermine one of the greatest political stories of our time?

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Alabama Mayor, City Councilman Beat The Shit Out Of Each Other

 birmingham mayor william bell

The mayor of Birmingham, Alabama got into a fight with a city councilman on Tuesday that sent both men to the hospital.

According to the Associated Press, local media covering a city council meeting reported hearing shouts from another room. Both Mayor William Bell and Councilman Marcus Lundy were in the room, allegedly fighting one another in a vicious physical confrontation.

Birmingham police and paramedics were called in to assess the situation. Meanwhile, Bell and Lundy’s people began blaming one another for the fight.
Mayoral spokesperson April Odom suggested that Lundy was angry with Bell since he had to return a city vehicle he’d been using. (Local law prohibits councilmen and women from having municipal vehicles.) During a subsequent press conference overseen by the city council, Council President Johnathan Austin insisted Bell was to blame since he was apparently trying to get Lundy fired for undisclosed reasons.
However, police could not corroborate Austin’s statement as witnesses wouldn’t give statements.
Bell and Lundy’s representatives cited their party’s injuries as evidence of being attacked. As a result, charges and arrest warrants were threatened against both men. When asked for comment on this, however, Birmingham Police Chief A. C. Roper declined to comment.

Both men were taken to a nearby hospital for further evaluation.
[h/t Associated Press]
[Image via Facebook]
— —
>> Follow Andrew Husband (@AndrewHusband) on Twitter

How To Watch The GOP Debate

By Taegan Goddard

New York Times: “CNN is hosting the festivities, starting with the so-called undercard debate for candidates with the lowest poll numbers. Television coverage begins at 6 p.m. Eastern, and the face-off is expected to end by 8:10 p.m. The main debate will begin around 9 p.m. and finish at 11 p.m. The debates will air on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Español.”

The debate will air on CNN and stream for free online.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

An Open Letter To The Black Pastors Who Met With Donald Trump

What were you thinking?
Posted:
499321032-republican-candidate-donald-trump-arrives-to-speaks-to
Republican candidate Donald Trump (fourth from left) arrives to speak to the press with the Rev. Darrell Scott (center), senior pastor of the New Spirit Revival Center in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, after meeting with African-American pastors at Trump Tower in New York City Nov. 30, 2015. TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images



Dear Pastors,

My least favorite thing about nonspoken forms of communication is the room for misunderstanding that comes from not being able to detect the tone of a person. Please allow me to minimize the possibility of a misinterpretation by first outlining exactly how I feel.

I am angry, disappointed, slightly confused and fully embarrassed.

But this isn’t the type of hurt or anger one can achieve without having some sort of personal connection to the “offender.” This is more that type of hurt and anger that I always assumed served as the catalyst for Michael Eric Dyson’s essay about Cornel West. It’s the level of anger that comes when a person you hold (or previously held) in high regard does or says something so offensive that you feel compelled to respond. Only a person with whom you currently have an emotional connection can evoke that level of emotion from you. Who else would have that sort of power?

I have spent a significant portion of my life with you. By “you,” I am referring to black pastors in African-American churches. While I may not have attended any of your specific churches, as a black Christian I regularly attend African-American services and have developed a respect, love and appreciation for the office of pastor. So by default, this respect was extended to you as well—that was, until I watched the media coverage after the meeting with Donald Trump.

A public endorsement of a man who is blatantly racist and willfully ignorant and has a political agenda that does not seem to include the very people who selected you as their pastor? None of this makes any sense. It is perfectly clear why Trump would consider it beneficial to blast this meeting that would include, as he stated, “endorsements from 100 black pastors.” Yet it is unclear why you would allow him to use you in this ridiculous ploy. To be frank, pastors, it makes me question your motives. In fact, it’s making many people question your motives and speculate about exactly how many building funds were paid off in exchange for your Uncle Ruckus “Mr. Trump sho is a good man” verdict.

I could hardly stand to watch the coverage, and I certainly don’t have the stomach to continue to follow it. I’m not sure how the members of your congregations feel, but I, personally, am embarrassed. And to be clear, the notion of wanting some form of political influence that might benefit the black community isn’t lost on me. I understand that.

What I don’t understand is how any form of endorsement of Trump would help ensure this. Again, I suspect that this is also clear to you, too, which reiterates my original point of questioning your motives. In the interests of still honoring the office of pastor, I won’t go any further with that statement.



But still, the fact that there was a large gathering of black pastors who came together and agreed that Trump is “misrepresented by the liberal media” is stunning. Getting any large group of heterogeneous people to coordinate their schedules and operate in agreement is no small task and requires effort. Yet you were able to pull this off.

This is probably the part I find most disappointing as a social-justice advocate. Getting many influential community leaders together and organizing around a substantial cause has historically yielded positive change in our community. It is what helped birth such profound changes in the fight for civil rights, and it is the very thing that could help continue the progress of the Black Lives Matter movement. Pastors, could this same level of organization and agreement not have been more impactful if redirected to actually address how victims of police violence are always misrepresented by the conservative media? Or perhaps to even display a similar level of intolerance for injustice that the very Jesus you teach about often demonstrated?

I ask these questions without honestly expecting a response; I don’t have the machine of the Trump campaign and the power that provides. I am asking in hopes that it may plant a seed that will produce a shift in your thinking that will be reflected in your future actions. Maybe—and this is a big maybe—I will see all of you surround the families of those who were victims of police violence, and champion for them the way you did for Trump. But again, those families also lack the machine of the Trump campaign behind them.

As I close, I sincerely hope that the rationale for such an emotional response, and the intent of this letter, were fully conveyed. More important, I hope that the suggestions noted above will be considered. And if my prayers are answered, maybe some of them will be applied.

Finally, pastors, please remember that I did not write this from a position of an authority figure seeking to condemn you. I wrote this as a person with a genuine emotional connection to the black church and a keen understanding of the power it has within the community—a community that is often neglected by the candidate you publicly support. This community deserves better that that, and you deserve more than to be reduced to a silly political ploy. If nothing else, I hope that this letter reminds you of what I never forgot—which is how instrumental your leadership has been when it wasn’t for sale, and used only to advance our people, not a political agenda.


Shanita Hubbard is a mom, writer, social-justice advocate and Nas stan, and lover of a great twist-out and good books. Follow her on Twitter.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Sanders Handily Trounces All Top Republicans—Yeah, Including Trump

By Janet Allon

 Clinton still has a sizable lead over Bernie, though.

Nothing seems to touch Donald Trump, it seems, whose lead in the Republican race for president has stayed solid and even grown as Ben Carson fades. Nothing except possibly the "Bern" man.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton handily beat any top Republican candidates. Here are Sanders' latest numbers:
  • Topping Trump 49 - 41 percent;
  • Getting 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent;
  • Beating Cruz 49 - 39 percent;
  • Leading Carson 47 - 41 percent.
In many cases, those numbers are even higher than Hillary Clinton's, who nonetheless maintains a sizable lead against Sanders. Here are Clinton's numbers:
  • 47 - 41 percent over Trump, compared to 46 - 43 percent November 4;
  • Clinton at 45 percent to Rubio's 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 41 percent Rubio lead last month;
  • Clinton tops Cruz 47 - 42 percent, compared to Cruz at 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent last month;
  • Clinton at 46 percent to Carson's 43 percent compared to Carson's 50 - 40 percent lead last month.
According to the poll, Clinton now enjoys a lead over Sanders, 60 to 30 percent, an increase from her numbers near the beginning of November of 53 to 35 percent in another Quinnipiac poll.
While Trump's lead on the Republican side has solidified eleven months before the election, making it seem increasingly possible that he will be the nominee, his rivals have fallen away. According to the poll:
Trump gets 27 percent of Republican voters today, with 17 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 16 percent each for Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and 5 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. No other candidate tops 3 percent, with 8 percent undecided.
Last month, Trump had 24 percent, with 23 percent for Carson.
So, the (crazy) doctor is definitely not in anymore.

But the blowhard real estate mogul? He's doing just fine, high negatives not withstanding. "It doesn't seem to matter what he says or who he offends, whether the facts are contested or the 'political correctness' is challenged,"  said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Donald Trump seems to be wearing Kevlar,"

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist

 
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. (Jay Laprete/Reuters)


Opinion writer



Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.
 
Some will think this an outrageous label to apply to the front-runner for a major party’s presidential nomination. Ordinarily, I would agree that name-calling is part of what’s wrong with our politics.

But there is a greater imperative not to be silent in the face of demagoguery. Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled. His pattern brings to mind the famous words of Martin Neimoller, the pastor and concentration camp survivor (“First they came for the socialists…”) that Ohio Gov. John Kasich adroitly used in a video last week attacking Trump’s hateful broadsides.

It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. 
 
But at some point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot.

It has been more than a quarter century since Trump took out ads in New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for “criminals of every age” after five black and Latino teens were implicated in the Central Park jogger case. The young men, convicted and imprisoned, were later cleared by DNA evidence and the confession of a serial rapist – and Trump called their wrongful-conviction settlement a “disgrace.”


Since then, Trump led the “birther” movement challenging President Obama’s standing as a natural-born American; used various vulgar expressions to refer to women; spoke of Mexico sending rapists and other criminals across the border; called for rounding up and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants; had high-profile spats with prominent Latino journalists and news outlets; mocked Asian accents; let stand a charge made in his presence that Obama is a Muslim and that Muslims are a “problem” in America; embraced the notion of forcing Muslims to register in a database; falsely claimed thousands of Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey; tweeted bogus statistics asserting that most killings of whites are done by blacks; approved of the roughing up of a black demonstrator at one of his events; and publicly mocked the movements of New York Times (and former Washington Post) journalist Serge Kovaleski, who has a chronic condition limiting mobility.

He hasn’t gone after Jews recently, but his backers have, and Trump was uncharacteristically silent when prominent booster Ann Coulter, responding to Republican candidates’ support for Israel in a debate, tweeted: “How many fucking Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Though all Trump supporters surely aren’t racists or bigots, even a cursory examination of social media reveals that many are.  Those supporting Trump tend to be white, less-educated and middle-aged and older – those who are anxious and angry because they are losing ground as the American economy changes. An analysis of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll by my colleague Scott Clement found that Trump, who has the support of 14 percent of registered voters overall, does particularly well among white men who aren’t college-educated (24 percent) and white, non-evangelical Protestants (27 percent), but gets only 3 percent of non-whites and 5 percent of those under 30 years old.

This doesn’t mean Republicans or conservatives generally are bigoted. I wouldn’t label any other candidate in the GOP field that way (though Carson’s remarks disqualifying Muslims from the presidency crossed the line) and Trump, though leading in the polls, lacks the support of most.

Thirty-two percent of Republicans supported Trump in the latest Post poll, which means 86 percent of the overall American electorate hasn’t embraced him.

Trump’s rivals for the nomination are slowly and haltingly finding the courage to call the man what he is. Chris Christie on Monday criticized Trump’s treatment of Kovaleski. John Kasich, after last week’s Neimoller video, issued an ad Monday showing Trump’s mockery of Kovaleski’s disability and saying Trump isn’t “worthy” of the presidency.

Some Trump defenders claim the candidate isn’t racist but simply “careless and undisciplined,” as John Hinderaker of the conservative website PowerLine put it. When I called in last week to a radio show Hinderaker hosted, he defended the treatment of the black man at Trump’s rally (“he was obviously being disruptive and he was a big burly guy”), Trump’s tweet falsely blaming African Americans for most killings of white people (“he just fell for some bad data”) and Trump’s embrace of a Muslim database (“that was brought up by a reporter”).

I argued that the large number of instances over an extended period add up to a pattern of bigotry.
“We’d be at it a long time if we go back through history,” the host said.

Exactly. Shouldn’t Republicans take that time before they nominate a racist?

Twitter: @Milbank
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

5 vitamins and minerals that are actually worth your money

Science tells us that taking most vitamins is worthless - but here's a few that buck the trend

By Joseph Stromberg


5 vitamins and minerals that are actually worth your money (Credit: R_Szatkowski via Shutterstock)

Recently, a number of studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine underscored a fact that scientists have become increasingly sure of: The vast majority of vitamins and mineral supplements are simply not worth taking. “Enough is enough: stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements,” declared an editorial that was published in the issue.

This goes for a tremendous range of supplements that you might imagine to be beneficial. Multivitamins don’t reduce the chance of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Controlled, randomized studies—where one group of people take supplements and another takes placebos, and the groups are compared—have produced little evidence that antioxidants protect against cancer. Study after study has shown that vitamin C does nothing to prevent common cold, a misbelief that dates to a theoretical suggestion made by a scientist in the 1970’s.

Of course, our bodies do need these vitamins to live—it’s just that the diet of most people who live in developed countries in the 21st century already includes them in abundance. In many cases, taking high amounts of them in a refined form (especially vitamins A, C and E and beta carotene) can actually be harmful, increasing the risk of cancer and other diseases by excessively inflating the concentration of antioxidants in the body.

Nevertheless, there are a handful of vitamins and supplements that, studies suggest, are actually worth taking for people with specific conditions. Information is Beautifula data visualization website, has a thought-provoking interactive that shows supplements charted by the strength of evidence that indicates they’re beneficial. Here’s our rundown of some of the most promising.

​Vitamin D

Of all the “classic” vitamins—the vital organic compounds discovered between 1913 and 1941 and termed vitamin A, B, C, etc.—vitamin D is by far the most beneficial to take in supplement form.

A 2008 meta-analysis (a review of a number of studies conducted on the same topic) of 17 randomized controlled trials concluded that it decreased overall mortality in adults. A 2013 meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials came to the same conclusion. In other words, by randomly deciding which participants took the supplement and which didn’t and tightly controlling other variables (thereby reducing the effect of confounding factors), the researchers found that adults who took vitamin D supplements daily lived longer than those who didn’t.

Other research has found that in kids, taking vitamin D supplements can reduce the chance of catching the flu, and that in older adults, it can improve bone health and reduce the incidence of fractures.

Of course, even though they’re widely recognized as the best way to test a treatment’s effectiveness, randomized controlled trials have limitations. In this case, the biggest one is that these studies can’t tell us much about the mechanism by which vitamin D seems to reduce mortality or provide other health benefits. Still, given the demonstrated benefits and the fact that it hasn’t been shown to cause any harm, vitamin D might be worth taking as a supplement on a consistent basis.

Probiotics

A mounting pile of research is showing how crucial the trillions of bacterial cells that live inside us are in regulating hour health, and how harmful it can be to suddenly wipe them out with an antibiotic. Thus, it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that if you do go through a course of antibiotics, taking a probiotic (either a supplement or a food naturally rich in bacteria, such as yogurt) to replace the bacteria colonies in your gut is a good idea.

In 2012, a meta-analysis of 82 randomized controlled trials found that use of probiotics (most of which contained bacteria from the Lactobacillus genus, naturally present in the gastrointestinal tract) significantly reduced the incidence of diarrhea after a course of antibiotics.

All the same, probiotics aren’t a digestive cure-all: they haven’t been found to be effective in treating irritable bowel syndrome, among other chronic ailments. Like most other supplements that are actually effective, they’re useful in very specific circumstances, but it’s not necessary to continually take them on a daily basis.

Zinc

Vitamin C might not do anything to prevent or treat the common cold, but the other widely-used cold supplement, zinc, is actually worth taking. A mineral that’s involved in many different aspects of your cellular metabolism, zinc appears to interfere with the replication of rhinoviruses, the microbes that cause the common cold.

This has been borne out in a number of studies. A 2011 review [PDF] that considered 13 therapeutic studies—in which patients who’d just come down with the common cold were given zinc supplements, and compared to those who’d been given a placebo—found that the mineral significantly reduced the duration of the cold, and also made symptoms less severe. So if you feel a cold coming on, avoid overdosing on vitamin C, but take a zinc lozenge or pill to get better sooner.

Niacin

Also known as vitamin B3, niacin is talked up as a cure for all sorts of conditions (including high cholesterol, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and headaches) but in most of these cases, a prescription-strength dose of niacin has been needed to show a clear result.

At over-the-counter strength, niacin supplements have only been proven to be effective in helping one group of people: those who have heart disease. A 2010 review found that taking the supplement daily reduced the chance of a stroke or heart attack in people with heart disease, thereby reducing their overall risk of death due to a cardiac event.

​Garlic

Garlic, of course, is a pungent herb. It also turns out to be an effective treatment for high blood pressure when taken as a concentrated supplement.

A 2008 meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials (in which similar groups of participants were given either a garlic supplement or placebo, and the results were compared) found that, on the whole, taking garlic daily reduced blood pressure, with the most significant results coming in adults who had high blood pressure at the start of the trials.

On the other hand, there have also been claims that garlic supplements can prevent cancer, but the evidence is mixed. Observational studies (which rely on data collected from people already taking garlic supplements on their own) have found associations between garlic consumption and a reduced incidence of cancer, but that correlation could be the result of confounding factors. Controlled studies have failed to replicate that data.