How can delusional Democrats read something like this and conclude that Hillary Clinton (or anyone like her) represents their interests and values their concerns?

But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.

And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley.

And this.

Yet some of the closest relationships Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have are with their longstanding contributors. If she feels most at ease around millionaires, within the gilded bubble, it is in part because they are some of her most intimate friends.

I’m gagging over here.

I just can’t conceive of any world where people like this — who seem to genuinely believe that Clinton has their best interests at heart — can square that with her policies and behavior.

No, I don’t think Trump would make a better president and will not be voting for him.

However, there just has to be vast cognitive dissonance going on for anyone to look at the evidence before them and conclude that Clinton or anyone of her class will do anything but be a complete sellout to the ultra-rich and Wall Street banksters, and do her best to make the country worse for everyone else and better for them.

It’s completely puzzling to me how many people can be so deluded. I guess, though, that’s how politics works and perhaps must work.

I’m not with her — or anyone who wants to sell me and my nation out to the predators of society.

Took me a while to figure out Lena Dunham.

She’s a female bro. That’s all it is. An educated female bro.

That is a rare species indeed. One is rarely spotted in the wild.

The problem with this refutation is that it’s incoherent. What is the author refuting? That some people think that there was no Bering Strait? That some people believe no migration ever occurred by that route? That there was no ice-free corridor? (One of the commenters points out the same thing.)

When it’s not even possible to ascertain what your refutation is refuting, you have failed.

I believe the author is attempting to state that earlier waves of migration via other routes do not disprove that later migration occurred via the Bering Strait route.

But like many poor writers, the author cannot state the thesis outright as then it’s too easy to challenge and face-saving is impossible, so it’s buried and incomprehensible.