I would like to humbly suggest that ridiculous, stupid videos, without any attempt or effort at explaining, evaluating or justifying them, should be a TOS violation based on pure laziness..  It does nothing to further conversation or enlightenment.  

There are currently three contenders for the Office of President of the United States.  Only one has posted her taxes (for the preceding 10 years).  Donald first said he would; then said (today) that it is none of George Stephanopolis' business (and by implication, US voters as well).  Bernie posted an abridged 2014 return, and stated that he would only release others if Hillary would publish the texts of her speeches to Wall Street groups.  Bernie"s speeches in Nicaragua and Cuba have not been released, nor Donald's speeches, which very likely would surprise his base.

Having just recently been called a "Hilbot," and feeling insulted by that, I thought I would ask for feedback about what the definition really is.  I was formerly called an "Obama-bot," and didn't like that either.  I associate the name with uninformed and thoughtless loyalty to a particular candidate, along with a rigidity that precludes any objectivity.

I did try the internet, but bots are just fly larvae, so not helpful.

I now feel that a short-hand definition is simply this:  

I found this article in a New York Times newsdump in my email.  I was struck by the reference to a Malaysian pilot who expressed an interest in terrorism and a second reference to another Malaysian who wanted to use a shoe bomb to gain access to a cockpit (and was given a shoe bomb).

I sent this to Josh at TPM and also to MSNBC but did not get a reply from either.  Any thoughts from my fellow Dagbloggers?  It seems so odd to ignore this!