Trump now says he would not order torture, or assassination of relatives of designated enemies.

This doesn't surprise me. He only advocated those things to appeal to fleeting passions; he didn't really care about it as a policy.

I've seen articles comparing Trump's hate rhetoric with Hitler's, but I think that is an error. Hitler was obsessed with hatred of Jews, long before he got anywhere in politics. I don't think Trump really hates Mexicans or Muslims. I think he is only using them as scapegoats to get support, and if he won, he would not need these scapegoats any more.

We can't tell much about what Trump would really do as president from what he says, and likewise for Clinton. They would be lousy in different ways, but we can't be sure who would be worse.

We can tell that neither of them deserves our support. The only candidate now in the race that deserves support is Bernie Sanders.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund lost $4,500 per member by investing in fossil fuels.

Jeremy Corbyn has the courage to stand up to prudes that want to prosecute prostitutes or their customers.

Many poor countries were on the path to effective development, including the poor, until US/UK/France intervened 60 years ago to impose plutocracy and repression.

A woman who was born as a prisoner in Auschwitz, and almost died from malnutrition, is testifying against a man accused of being one of the guards there.

I object to her claim that causing a hypothetical person not to be born is equivalent to murder. It would imply that celibate priests, monks and nuns are all murderers, along with anyone that decides not to have sex with someone, not to mention anyone that uses birth control.

The Nazis murdered 7 million real living helpless prisoners. Surely that is sufficient evil to condemn — I don't think we need try to stretch that figure by counting nonexistent potential people too.

There are three things I don't understand about this testimony: