I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

>> ^syncron:

Hello class action suit.
>> ^PCGuy123:
>> ^syncron:
Couldn't she just remove the key to kill the engine?

No, this model of Kia Sorento had a proximity key, so she could start the car by just having the key fob on her person. I guess there is no way to turn off the car while it's in gear.
I'm finding inconsistent news articles on this story: one said the police don't know why the car finally stopped, while another article indicates the driver followed a troopers advice and lifted up the accelerator pedal while pressing on the brake, which made the car stop. But another article claimed the brakes were burned out already. The driver also put the car in neutral but that had no effect.
Kia Motors responded this was an isolated incident. I'm suspicious that Kia could do a thorough test on this in less than a day.



You could be onto something: I wonder if all electric ignition cars need some kind of emergency cut-off switch installed, in case of situations like this one with the Kia Sorento?

I have electric ignition on my 2012 Toyota, need to check to see if there is any kind of override...

EDIT: on my keyless starter I have to press and hold the starter button for 3 seconds, which should cut the engine off. But that feature may not be the same for other keyless starter systems.

Apparently the NHTSA has proposed standardizing keyless ignition systems in an effort to help reduce accidents related to these systems, per this article: http://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/feds-propose-standardization-of-keyless-ignition-systems

From the article:
"The agency also wants to specify the amount of time necessary to push the control to stop the engine. A driver should be able to stop the car immediately in an emergency without having to wait too long to hold the ignition control in order to do so. Keyless ignition control systems have been linked partly to the sudden unintended acceleration crisis at Toyota. In August 2009, a Lexus being driven by an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer went out of control accelerated to excessive speeds and crashed. All 4 occupants of the car were killed instantly. In the Lexus that was involved in the accident, the driver needed to hold the keyless control for as long as 3 seconds in order to cut the engine. In 2007, there was a similar accident involving a Honda Accord. The driver wanted to switch off the engine in an emergency using the keyless ignition, but could not do so."

BTW, I AM PROGRESSIVE. So don't call me republican or anything. I'm against tax cuts, but why the hell are we going into debt just to buy some snot nosed kid a textbook, or to fix a damn pothole.



^ Perhaps I am a little biased about spending on education, but I doubt I could pay for college on my own with a job that doesn't require a college degree.


Also, I can drive around a pothole, but a collapsed bridge may be a bit more difficult. The road doesn't have to be pristine, but my old honda accord won't cross rivers.

>> ^thinker247:
Is anybody asking why Americans aren't buying American cars?

Yes and no. US car sales aren't as horrible as people make it out to be, as far as I can tell. I personally don't like modern US cars, but a lot of people forget there's been US hybrid trucks for about eight years now. Plus, we sell a lot of cargo trucks too:

"The F-150 attracted 473,933 buyers this year, making it the No. 1-selling vehicle for 2008--it's been the best-selling vehicle in America for 27 years running. Another 431,725 buyers drove off Chevrolet lots in a Silverado."


Here's a list of the top 10 selling cars in the US: (from Bloomberg)

1 - Ford F-150
2 - Chevrolet Silverado
3 - Toyota Camry
4 - Honda Civic
5 - Honda Accord
6 - Toyota Matrix
7 - Nissan Altima
8 - Chevy Impala
9 - Dodge Ram
10 - Ford Focus

So that's five of the top ten, with numbers 1 and 2 being American cars.

Honda, Toyota and Nissan have all received massive federal funding and tax incentives in the last 15 years. We're talking $500million+ for each company. Talk about "socialism". It's OK to give them cash, but not our own?


>> ^thinker247:
And what is the purpose of a union?

Wow, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States


It's an incredibly dark, fucked up story. Once read, you'll understand why they're not just purposeful, but also required due to humanities dark nature to enslave eachother.

mmm... it seems this thread has been resuscitated so i fear no repercussion of posting my hello!

my name is chris and i've been registered to the sift since december of 2006. i'm obviously a lurker more than anything, but it's really because i don't spend a lot of time digging up videos. the only reason i felt compelled to find something worth posting was to get rid of my probie status! (i trust you all understand.)

i've got a bachelor's in german from UC berkeley, but i spent about 3.5 years learning electrical engineering and computer programming. after getting my heart broken, i changed my major to change my friends and surroundings. i have not looked back since; being out of the basement is invaluable, and so are great books and interesting people.

i love burlesque. you can probably find me at the uptown club in oakland or somewhere in the city at a show. (that's san francisco.)

thanks to a woman whom i've adored for years, but never done anything with, i'm addicted to cycling. i ride fixed gear for fun, not fashion. the bike has a phrase i painted on it, "my other bike has gears." i'm also a mechanic, and i used to autocross my old 1989 honda accord because, well, why not.

videosift has been one of my regular stops on the internet... along with big picture, nytimes, wsj, and (until recently) my warcraft guild's website. i have been "clean" for about three months now. i have no intention to return to addictive gaming.

i'm studying to become a recognized beer judge by the BJCP. i will know my score after the november 14th 2008 test. my background is in wine, but beer is amazingly complex and terribly tasty.

currently, i work for an enormous independent auto shop in berkeley. we are solar powered, do anything hybrid, and have a great reputation. i am the sys-ad, but i also interface between the mechanics and customers since i don't mind talking with people.

i'm 26, and single... but it's my 'fault.' i don't like to fuck around, probably because i respect women; but i'm a good looking guy and could easily capitalize on that. i have eyes for two women who, for reasons beyond my feeble masculine conception, seem to have little interest in me.

the sift rages on! i would like to thank cat power for being the musical backdrop for reading this sift-talk.

much love and respect for everyone, including the impressive (intelligent) trolls as well. i do not condone choggie's downvote/discard actions, but his comments consistently brought a smirk to my face.

eff (like the letter, not the keebler )

How about Subaru Legacy or Honda Accord?
Just throwing in ideas as I pass by.

And while we're discussing "alternative fuel", there needs to be more public inquiry about Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. Because, in all honesty, they will not help our energy crisis, in the end they will hinder it. Why? Mostly because it takes far more energy to produce, store, and transport Hydrogen, than you will ever get out of using that Hydrogen. Just as an example a Hydrogen Tank stacked up against a Honda Accord:

A Hydrogen tank with 55kg @ 3000psi will weigh approximately 400kg and offer approximately 165 miles of driving range while costing $2000.

A gasoline tank, at 17 gallons, weighing 73kg, will offer 493 miles at a cost of $100.

The reasons for the increased tank weight with Hydrogen is due to the high pressure the Hydrogen must be stored at. The tank must be built heavy, and incredibly strong and durable in order to contain that pressure.

A more viable solution which we can easily invest in and promote would be purely electric cars, running on battery power. I recommend everyone who hasn't seen Who Killed The Electric Car? to run out and rent it as soon as possible.

Upvote for him never actually figuring out how to fire his weapon.

*EDIT*

Here's some more info on the video directly from baitcar.com

"This incident occurred in on June 6, 2004 when a well known 28-year-old car thief drove up to a parked bait truck in rural Langley in a stolen vehicle. (Between the years 1997 and 2004, he had been charged with 123 criminal offences.) He dumped the first stolen vehicle and then stole the bait truck. As he drove off in the bait truck, the suspect pulled out a loaded handgun and tried fourteen times to fire it indiscriminantly out the window. It appears that the gun was jammed and he was unable to fire it, but his body language indicates that he fully expected it to. The suspect then began casing cars and stopped numerous times to break into three vehicles in order to steal property from them. Soon a police officer who was dispatched to the location of the bait truck in the City of Abbostford arrived on scene while the suspect was out of the truck breaking into cars. As soon as the suspect saw the police car, he accellerated and reached speeds in excess of 140 Km/h while screaming "Oncoming" at the top of his lungs whenever he approached stop signs or red lights. The suspect struck three separate vehicles before dumping the bait truck, stealing a Honda Accord (that had a steering wheel lock on it) and escaping.

The suspect was identified through the bait car video which clearly reinforced the belief that he posed a significant risk to the safety of the public. A large manhunt began involving IMPACT, Surrey RCMP Auto Theft, bike and dog sections, Langley RCMP Street Enforcement Unit, Port Moody Street Crime Unit, the Integrated Emergency Response Team, the South Fraser Emergency Reponse Team, and Air-1, the RCMP's helicopter based at YVR. On June 22, the suspect was spotted behind the wheel of a stolen vehicle in the City of Langley. During the surveillance on the suspect, he stole a second vehicle, this time a Ford F150 from an underground parking lot in Surrey. Due to the excessive speeds the suspect was driving at even without him being aware that he was being followed, Air-1 was called in to provide coverage from the air. The suspect eventually spotted the helicopter, and in an attempt to flee from it, he drove through numerous fences and backyards at a townhouse complex in the Newton area of Surrey. Finally, after ramming the gate of an underground parking lot, he ran inside a large grocery story and fled out the back door into the waiting arms of officers who had surrounded it. The suspect was held in custody for a year awaiting his trial. He was recently sentenced to a four year prison term as a result of 24 charges that stemmed from numerous incidents, including the theft of the bait truck."

Also, in regards to them not cutting the engine:

"At the time of this incident, the bait car program had been up and running for only one month. The engine disabling policy at that time dictated that a bait car engine should only be disabled if the bait car is being driven slowly or is stopped, so that the driver would not lose power steering and power brakes. When this bait truck first took off from police, the responding officer called for the engine to be disabled, but this request was denied since the dispatcher could see the high speeds of the truck on the computer monitor and followed the policy that was in effect at that time. As the vehicle fled and didn't slow down, an attempt to disable the engine was made, but the cellular coverage in this particlar area of rural Aldergrove was weak and electronic communication between the dispatch centre and the bait truck was lost for a long period of time. When communications were re-established, the suspect was getting out of the truck and stealing his next vehicle to escape."

oh i know lol, its one of the most retarded things ive ever read, there is no reason behind it, it simply states in the Clean Air Act that anybody selling low emission vehicles (of the PZEV kind, which is the most cleanest) they get fined. Oh the irony of the clean air act.

In reply to this comment by looris:
wtf lol I just don't get it. Why it is ILLEGAL to sell those cars in many states?

I mean, I'm never surprised when people to the nastiest things because they gain something, but I really miss the point on what could be the gov gaining by banning clean cars...

maybe I misread something?

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
There ya go bud
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974>1=10365

In reply to this comment by looris:
Uh? I don't get it.

wtf lol I just don't get it. Why it is ILLEGAL to sell those cars in many states?

I mean, I'm never surprised when people to the nastiest things because they gain something, but I really miss the point on what could be the gov gaining by banning clean cars...

maybe I misread something?

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
There ya go bud
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974>1=10365

In reply to this comment by looris:
Uh? I don't get it.

There ya go bud
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974>1=10365

In reply to this comment by looris:
Uh? I don't get it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rube goldberg, 600 takes, patience, wow' to 'rube goldberg, 600 takes, patience, wow, honda accord' - edited by looris

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ad, ads, car, cars' to 'ad, car, honda accord, goldberg machine' - edited by looris