Also funny that they weren't worried about intelligence leaks when it was the NY branch of the FBI leaking intelligence to their election staff and Rudy Giuliani.

@ChaosEngine
never going to happen.
the obama administration has been waging war against whistleblowers for 8 years.prosecuting more whistleblowers using the archaic "espionage act of 1917" to pursue and prosecute more whistleblowers than any other president in americas history COMBINED.

unless there is a massive public outcry to force the executive branch to pardon snowden,it is never going to happen.

but as long as we are making a wishlist to the fairy godmother of shit-that-is-never-going-to-happen,let me add to that list:

1.repeal the NDAA of 2017,which is an addon to the NDAA of 2012,which is a simply continuation of the MCA of 2006 (look em up folks,those "rights" you claim to have are really mere suggestion due to these abominations.

2.pursue and indict ALL wall street players who knowingly engaged in fraud and collapsed the global economy.strip them of all begotten gains to pay back the american people,and throw them in the most vile of maximum prisons (hopefully with a bunkmate nicknamed 'anal destroyer").

3.recind ALL expanded powers that the bush administration enacted (thanks to neocons addington and woo) and which the obama administration actually expanded even further,and NOW trump will be executive over the most powerful executive branch in american history .(this would be a nice one eh?).

4.have the DEA and ATF actually honor obamas original statement that his administration would not pursue federal law in regards to marijuana,mandated by referendums by the citizens of those states (to which he had promptly disregarded,and raided local dispenseries).

5.reduce americas prison population(2.4 million,largest on the planet) by pardoning the non-violent drug offenders,and disallowing companies like nike and apple to abuse prison labor (slave labor).

6.stop the practice of military intervention at the behest of corporations to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable.

7.stop the practice of regime change at the behest..oh this is becoming familiar...corporations wishing to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable for their resources.

8.and could we possibly,maybe..stop with targeted drone strikes? a.k.a "assassinations". how a constitutional law professor reconciles his law pedigree with his "value target tuesday" i.e:murder just boggles my mind.

man,i should stop.my wishlist is becoming to long..and depressing.

i voted this video up because i will not ignore that obama did some good,and even some great things during his presidency,but i also will not ignore his very disturbing failures.

and there are a LOT of disturbing failures.

so i will sit and hold hands and sing kumbaya as we all remember our very smart president,but let us not forget..this very same president expanded an executive branch that trump will be taking over the reigns very soon.

and on that note,i have to give him a failing grade.

First of all passing law to allow pedophiles and perverts in opposite sex bathrooms is wrong.
I'm not rooting for a team. Democrats are just worst. buy an ultra small margin.. They approve low moral standards.

Both are woefully disgusting and hence the ultra low approval ratings and Trump getting in.

I would much rather see more States stand up for States rights and actually limit the FEDs power to 1/2 or more of its current size.

Even better is for News to actually report truth and for the people to stop watching stupid mindless shows ( ie 99% of them) and tune to to what the heck is going on and VOTE. The people represent the "4th" branch of government in a sense. We need to kick out the Harry Reid's and john McCain's of government. They are the truly rich 1% and they did not build shit, they just bought and sold favors at the peoples expense.

With respect to chaos does nto matter where he lives on tihs issue. He was given a video of what is going on and still stood on the side of perverts.


With respect to Trump. Who knows what will unfold. But I do see a bright man who built an empire. That takes skill and ability. Hopefully he will use it to the betterment of the world.

Clinton is and utter disaster of a pick. Corrupt to the core.

The POTUS selection was a no brainier.

Bernie and my pick Cruz would have been an choice. True opposites. One one cheated and one was bullied.


No I am not a republican.. The Bushes were the final straw.

Sadly are only 2 teams and we must pick... Jill Stine No

My migraines aren't in remission but I don't suffer nearly as long as I used to since using light psychoactive CBD/THC. Duration of intense pain, loss of vision, loss of feeling in limbs, nausea, vomiting, and the rare seizure has been reduced from 6-12 hours every 2-4 weeks to maybe 2 hours every couple months, sometimes only with nausea, loss of vision, and minor or no pain.

However, the loss of vision, or what my doctors have referred to as visual "premonitions" are still a major pain that I'm not certain will ever go away. Luckily I don't get very many migraines any more. However, if I do get a migraine I still cannot drive or do anything that requires sight. Although I can technically see, it's severely impaired.

The absence or dulling of the pain during a migraine is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me medically. I had a migraine 2 days ago while I was jogging at the park, ran to my car so I could quickly get home before my vision was fucked, and then placed a soluble CBD + THC tablet (Trokie) up into the corner of my mouth where it was slowly absorbed into the facial branches of my carotid artery. After my vision cleared up, I had no headache.

Keep in mind I also take a pure CBD tablet every couple days, so it's not just the one tablet during episodes.

@radx

I don't see money being taken out of politics. Especially not with a Republican legislative / executive before the next election. In fact I've honestly become cynical about campaign finance reform having any serious effect no matter how well designed.

You can limit campaigns and their committees all you want, but if the money's there it will find it's way in through sponsored media and astro turfed 'grass roots' organisations that will claim some kind of legal disassociation with the candidate. Or the law will just be ignored like the supposed separation between campaigns and super PACs now.

Not that I like this, but I feel the lesson here as far as winning elections is concerned is, for a successful party the campaign never ends. Obama was blamed for every economic and foreign policy event over the past 8 years with little meaningful rebuke despite GOP obstructionism being a huge factor. He came very close to losing to Romney.

After Republicans claimed the legislative branch and so many state level positions that message should have been easy to refute citing an unwillingness to compromise for results (Simpson-Bowles debt plan should have been exhibit A). I would not at all be surprised if even now with almost complete government dominance, they are able to blame the Democrats for years to come by claiming to be fixing existing policy mistakes.

If Democrats don't deliver an effective message, they'll be looking at a second Trump term, with every failing over the previous 4 years blamed on them.

I'm voting for every non-incumbent congressional candidate (both Senate and House of Reps)

While I'd like to see a 4th branch of government created (direct democracy), I don't think that'll happen in my lifetime.

I'd love to see term limits for congress though.

@ChaosEngine

I generally agree with your assessments, but I think that the actual powers held by the Executive branch lend themselves pretty well to a person who is "well meaning, but without a clue of how government works".

Overwhelmingly more likely that we'll get to see how well Hillary follows through on her promises instead of how well some fresh blood could deal with lack of experience. I'm not personally excited about that (to put it mildly), but hey, maybe she will turn out better than my low expectations.

Sort of the opposite of having pretty high hopes for Obama and then being rather disappointed by the mediocrity of the follow-through. That was a pretty good example of how good intentions don't necessarily produce great results, especially since a President has to work with the Legislative branch (hah! good luck) to get anything done.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

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.

Oh fuck -- it's a Pizzafarian: the Protestant branch of the Pastafarians! Those guys are nucking futz! They just invented that religion out of thin air! A virgin calzone giving birth to a Chicago deep-dish with extra cheese; what kinda crap is that? Next they'll be telling us there's no pirates! Yup, the sooner this Pizzafarian sect is put down, the better.

Living in Thailand, I've grown to really appreciate locally grown meat and produce in comparison to massive factory farm stuff.

One good example: Tilapia fish. Back home in the US, I thought Tilapia was disgusting. It tastes like algae, because they are raised in man-made concrete tanks and fed exclusively on algae that is easy to grow. They won't breed in those conditions, so they have to pump in hormones to basically force them to reproduce, more hormones to make them grow quickly, etc. etc.

Here in Thailand, I live in a town close to a lake. If you go to the lake you can see huge enclosures made of nets, which keep the Tilapia contained but otherwise living very normal fish lives. They get a natural lake diet of insects, plants, etc., no need to give them any extra food. They reproduce without any encouragement.

Talk to one of the fish farmers, and they will pull up some of the net and present you with several fish to choose from. Point one out and they will pull it out, smack it on the head to kill it instantly, and then scale and gut it for you and put it in a bag. From alive in the lake to dinner in 15-20 minutes.

Or, if you go to a local market in town, people have stalls set up that serve the middleman function. They go to the lake and buy 20-50 Tilapia to put into a big tank in the back of their pickup, and keep them alive in there for a day or two until they are sold, for a slight markup so you don't have to drive out to the lake.


Roughly the same thing applies to pork, chicken, and most fruits and vegetables. Somewhat for beef also, but there is less of that since most Thais follow a branch of Buddhism that discourages killing/eating cows. So, gotta go to the Islamic Thai shops for beef.

Maybe the system here is old-fashioned, quaint, or a bit backwards ... but everything is really nice, fresh, and tasty compared to supermarket stuff back in the US.

I think perhaps we have more of a semantic disagreement here than a conceptual one.

That's fine, "meaning is use" as Wittgenstein would say.

I do take some contention with the idea that rule by intellectual elite would be necessarily "depressing". I'd happily take something like that over the kind of chucklefucks we get now. (as I said before, just trading one kind of political elite for another)

& the kind of meritocracy I'm talking about can be very broad. Any citizen could earn their votes within each branch of governance (and if they were very accomplished, most/all of them). It's just a matter of limiting the influence of mindlessly held opinions, which undermine the whole idea of "democracy" as you are defining it.

I don't think the existing examples of stable quasi meritocratic governments occurred by luck. Those places (Norway, Denmark and such) have considerably better educated populations and a greater cultural emphasis on intellectual elites.

As for the AI thing, I suspect we won't have a great deal of choice in the matter anyway.

I for one welcome our new robot overlords!

Much Love.

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

Not really a counter argument, because it presumes that there has been no human based change to the climate. Human based change to the climate has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I know people love to quote the 3% of scientists that believe there is either not enough information or that the other 97% are involved in a secret global conspiracy to make people believe in climate change, but lets be realistic. If you went to a doctor and he said there is a 97% likelihood that you will die if you do not change your lifestyle, would you be willing to bet on the 3%?

When you have people that have devoted their lives to studying a branch of science getting choked up with emotion at the likelihood that we will have a catastrophic incident in the next few decades, should you ignore them or try to come up with reasons why they might have a statistical gap of 3% of being wrong?

You can't get 100% of people to agree on anything, it's impossible simply due to human nature. But if you have a scientific result that is within a -3 percent of certainty, it's illogical to prevaricate.

The Democratic Party having control of both the executive and legislative branches does not mean Congress will go along with whatever the president says. Do you remember Obamacare at all? Was Obamacare what Obama wanted? No. It was a center left compromise to keep Democrats in the fold to vote for it. The Democratic Party still has a significant number of moderates within it.

Do you honestly think Obama got whatever he wanted his first two years in office with control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate? Absolutely not.

In fact, because of filibusters and polarization of the electorate, you can't get much of anything done anymore without control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate.

And the Shultz thing is hilarious to me. Clinton hired a high up skilled Democratic Party political operative for her campaign, and that means she's corrupt? Because Schultz favored a candidate who has always been a strong party candidate over another candidate who only caucused with the Democrats, and wasn't actually a Democrat himself? Yeah, she shouldn't have done what she did. Dennis Rodman shouldn't have done what he did to Scottie Pippen in the playoffs, too, when he was with Detroit. And who thought Rodman should have been brought in to help the Bulls? Pippen. Clinton is trying to win an election. If that's the kind of thing you consider as proof of actual corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

I am not voting against Trump. I am voting for the most competent, experienced candidate who I think will do the best job out of this lot of candidates. She is the only candidate who is extremely qualified.

Is she perfect? Hell, no. She isn't particularly inspiring. She's not very good as a politician at persuading people to her side. She panders too much. Sometimes she plays political games too much, like with the email fiasco.


But you can do a lot worse than Clinton. You don't have to go back far to find an inept president.