I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

Argument pro plain incompetence/stupidity: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

On a personal note: Olberman throwing accusations at foreign governments without solid evidence while claiming that WikiLeaks "hacks Podesta's email" is not helping his credibility. He's always been prone for exaggeration, but at a time when your military is bombing people in nearly a dozen countries and you're fighting a proxy-war against a nuclear-armed superpower in Syria, going off on an almost McCarthy-ite rant is not helping.

I just skimmed the wrap-ups on the 4chan/Podesta/WL thing that went down tonight and... well, it really is one of those moments.

Same login data for different services, recovery email at Yahoo, WH asking for SSN/DOB through email -- they either really don't give a fuck or they are utterly incompetent.

And it just keeps on giving. I got as far as seeing that both the CIA director and the National Security Advisor use AOL, which was when I called it a day.

There's only so much you can take...

Hmm. I agree that Trump is an incompetent egotistical blowhard, who drums up support by drastically overstating America's problems. America doesn't *need* drastic change.

...BUT, American government, particularly at the national level in Washington really is a complete trainwreck that *does* need drastic change. Both of our disgusting parties hold plenty of blame for that.

I think that the short-term damage that a Trump presidency would cause would be mitigated pretty well by the separation of powers, one of the few elements of our government that does function pretty well. And I feel like it is possible that a long-term benefit could be that Republican voters would get a hard-to-ignore lesson that the "ideals" that are spouted by their party leadership don't work. George W Bush was the best thing to happen for the Democrat party in a long time; Trump could finish the party off and let something better replace it.

Hillary is definitely more competent. In the short term, the country would definitely be better off with her at the helm than Trump. But, I don't see any long-term benefits to electing her.

Republicans would have a prime and familiar scapegoat. The legislative branch ground to a standstill with Obama in office, I think it will/would be worse with Hillary. That might actually be a good thing; it could limit the damage that they can do -- and the consequences of a shitty legislative branch are worse than a shitty president, I think.

And the Democrat party, which had a golden fucking opportunity to lead by example and actually do some exciting GOOD things with government to win voters over, instead did every dirty and questionable thing they could to guarantee that Hillary "I am the establishment" Clinton got their nomination.


Neither side deserves to win, and in fact both sides deserve to lose. I'll be voting 3rd party; not that it will accomplish anything.

Democrats, you could have had my vote if you had selected literally anybody other than Hillary. Hell, I'd probably even have voted for Hillary over Trump if she had beat Bernie fair and square without resorting to all the shady stuff (she probably would have won even without that shit).

Republicans, almost the same goes for you -- I'd pretty happily have voted for anybody other than Trump running against Hillary. Well, maybe not creepy-as-fuck Ted Cruz or some other batshit crazy option like Sarah Palin; but pretty much any of the others.

Too late now though.

Pardon me, shots. It was a criminal level of incompetence. Yet neither the Commander who gave 'conflicting statements'(lied) nor the Officer have been charged with anything, even at this late date. Additionally, something else I forgot was that they let the victim bleed while handcuffed for 20 minutes without providing any first aid or making it a priority that he was treated. It was lucky that he didn't bleed out or go into shock.

But this is the type of thing I am talking about and was referencing to @bareboards2. I mean, I'm white and of Italian descent, so I could do damn near anything to an officer and not be killed. I even conceal carry, although they know that as soon as they see my license or run my plates. Yet we have people of color that are being run rampant over, be it racism or fear of a different culture/people. Like in that video where the guy was shot and the female officer's husband was in the pursuit helicopter saying that he looked like a mean black dude. We simply can't keep this up.

Took the shots.
He fired 3 times, and missed with all 3 shots if you believe he was shooting at the seated man brandishing a fully automatic toy truck.
That's a criminal level of incompetence if you ask me.

Cops shouldn't be considered a threat because they have been appointed by the government to uphold the law. The success of that is definitely up for debate, but to suggest that citizens should be fighting cops is absurd. That will only lead to more deaths.
(The solution is for the system to weed out the bad cops, the incompetent ones, the corrupt ones, the power tripping, racist, trigger happy etc).

Most cops do the right thing, most of the time. The millions of police encounters each day where nothing has gone wrong don't make the news.

I think it's worth considering what the any country would be like without law enforcement. We know what it would be like - hurricane Katrina - complete chaos on the streets, far worse than these shootings. Assuming your goal is to have fewer people shot and murdered, then having a police force is the best way we know of. However for that to work we need a competent police force that is there to serve and protect.

There definitely needs to be a system were police are made accountable to make sure stuff like this video does happen, or even non-lethal situations where citizens are being harassed. There are number of ways to do this. But my suggestions is that if you want to argue with someone, don't do it while they're holding a gun at you. Wait until you get to the station and call your lawyer. It's not perfect, but at your chances of getting shot will drop dramatically.

Sorry, I don't agree. Hillary wouldn't be my first choice, but of all the candidates on both sides (and independents), she'd be in my top 2 or 3. The rest are either idiots, incompetent or both (see Johnson and Aleppo). That's not that I like Hillary, but she's the least worst.

Trump, OTOH, is easily in the bottom row. The only worse candidates would be Cruz or Santorum.

Thing is, I can get past the racism, the xenophobia, the sexism and the idiotic economics. They're all terrible, but mostly they'll just fuck up the USA.

But his stance on the environment is completely unacceptable and has global consequences. He simply cannot be allowed to be president.

Saying Hillary and Trump are both bad is true, but it's also a false equivalence. Getting the flu or cancer both suck, but I'll take the flu over cancer any day.

But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days.

A better title might be 'cops bend over and lube up for Harris feed lot owners'. They didn't come out for the drone, they came out in force because the feed lot owners/managers asked them to....over nothing....at least twice.
Fresno police better not EVER claim they are overworked or that there are too few police. If they can come out in such numbers twice for possible trespass in the countryside on public land, they either have way too many officers there with nothing to do, or they are so incompetent that they ignored actual crimes to cow tow to a major local employer. Either case should lead to firings.

This isn't "the media", this is some random dudes youtube channel with a whopping 168 subscribers.... hardly "media elite".

This has nothing to do with biased or unbiased reporting. It's simply showing that Trump is a liar.

Here's the thing: I don't mind people changing their minds... that's not "flip-flopping", that's re-evaluating the evidence. Changing your mind is a good thing (if you have been convinced by sound reason).

But Trump is a liar. He doesn't say he changed his mind, he flat-out denies every saying whatever in the first place! What's even more worrying is that he doesn't seem to realise that he's on the record. It's not just dishonest, it's incompetent.

I don't know what folks you mean or how squeaky clean you mean, but I think if you search the internet long enough, you'll find someone childish enough to accuse Hilary of corruption for, say, cutting the queue at Burger King. I agree that you can't expect people to be perfect since birth, do people really ask for that?

I look at the world around us: unbelievable wealth inequality, global warming, oil wars, illegal invasions, the hijacking of Greek democracy, the great bankers bailout swindle, austerity politics, the pay gap.... I won't go on. The world has not been well managed for a long time now. A national leader represents a fuck-ton of people and their decisions can literally lead to the slow or immediate death of all of us, either by inaction or incompetence or mistake....etc. Honesty and integrity have got to be important now, even if the old ways seem familiar and comfortable. I would argue it's childish (naive) to say let's ignore those things.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.

The President does have enough power to totally sink us IF they're volatile enough. Simple incompetence in a president doesn't sink us. However, that can cost lives. 1,833 people died officially from Katrina, although obviously not that many were directly from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. 4,500 Americans have died in Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation. These things don't "sink" the US completely, but they're VERY consequential.

But Trump is incompetent AND volatile. Bringing both of those qualities to the table as president, and you've got much much bigger issues.

Finally, I absolutely do not get the charges of personal corruption against Hillary Clinton, especially when compared to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, so far as I can tell, is an agent who is operating within a system that has been corrupted, and not personally by her. The system needs to be reformed. She's done things to win within the system that you'd ideally not do. But I don't get how she is personally corrupt.

But you speak as if Clinton is the competent but corrupt one, and Trump is the incompetent but non-corrupt one, which blows my mind. How is the only way you can be corrupt is through accepting campaign contributions? How is Trump University not an indictment of how corrupt Trump personally is? How is it not corrupt to appeal to white supremacists? How is it not corrupt to name call, incite your supporters to violence, and dismiss women because they must be on their periods? How is it not corrupt to have your daughter make a speech at the RNC and then tweet how to buy the dress she was wearing, so she could make some coin?

Because one of those forms of corruption is being potentially corrupted by a corrupt system, but they're at least trying to reform that system. Hillary Clinton is the one against Citizens United, officially calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Has Donald Trump?

I don't think HRC will be a great president. I don't particularly like her much. However, she is qualified to be President. She's done nothing illegal, which is the hallmark of whether someone is corrupt.

And don't kid yourself about our government's ability containing a fascist. The Weimar Republic's government had structures in place to prevent the rise of Hitler, too. They had separation of powers. The government was one of the most democratic governments in the world. Fat lot of good that did.

I'm not saying necessarily that Trump is the next Hitler. But I am saying that there are enough similarities that I can't vote for him, and the mere fact he got a major party's nomination is scary beyond all reason. And voting for someone like that proves out their blueprint for future candidates across the board for offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at all levels of government.

As much as I don't like HRC, Trump is easily the worse major party's nominee in a very very very long time.