Slashdot Mirror

What are you waiting for? EA pioneered canning people. https://heavy.com/games/2017/1...

it's the White Supremacist Twitter.

Muh white supremacy

For context we have a pattern of shooters hating Donald Trump therefore everyone who hates Donald Trump should be considered a prospective shooter. When are Facebook and Twitter going to act?

So? Hillary couldn't have done more for for Wall Street than Trump actually and truly did even she had spend all her time trying - if only because the Republican dominated congress would have blocked her. https://heavy.com/news/2017/01... - https://www.euractiv.com/secti...

The Elections Project notes that there were 251,107,404 people who classify as members of the voting-age population, therefore 115,449,897 of the voting-age population (or 46.3 percent) did not vote.

So 251 million voters, but only 63 million voted for Trump.

Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)

Looks like I way overestimated, you only need 25% of people to vote for you to win.

Mod these facts down too if you like.
Everyone knows it's not true if you can hide it, and your snowflake feelings won't get hurt.

Okay to make a bit of light on this tragic situation has anyone else seen the footage coming out of various organisations from the disaster. The selifies are especially terrifying. Example: https://heavy.com/news/2018/04...

Doesn't anyone know how to use a god damn oxygen mask? I mean it has been a staple part of flight safety demonstrations since the 80s, but really look at the selfies, NO ONE seems to know how the oxygen masks work. Like people have them attached to their chins and stuff, I'm genuinely surprised no one is wearing one like a hat.

Here's a troll for you, https://heavy.com/news/2018/04... from the article, "Tammie Jo Shults is the pilot who bravely flew", 'er' why is she brave, I mean American love celebritising everything, real fetish for it, fill news with junk but being brave is having a choice and in spite of your fear, doing your job. So did she have a choice, could she say, "nahh bugger this, I'm bloody gettin' out o' here, let some other drongo do it", or did she have no choice and was fighting to save her own bloody arse, not the plane, not the passenger, landing so she did not die.

Now there is a real kick in the pants of celebrity fetish reality for you and it is a bit Trollish, more Aussie than Russian though (just for you https://www.rt.com/news/424434...), happy ;).

Carol Davidsen, Director of the 2012 Obama campaign's Media Analytics group, got data on almost all American voters. In a telling quote, she said:

Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.

They got the data from an estimated 190 MILLION people in the United States. There's no way 190 million people gave permission to the Obama campaign. Instead, they used the 1 million Obama app downloaders to scrape all of their Friend's personal information - which is exactly what CA's professor did.

Here's an article from 2013 that has Obama campaign analysts reporting that Facebook knew the campaign was breaking the rules, but allowed it "as long as you stop on Nov. 7th".

There is no doubt that the Obama campaign did at least everything Cambridge Analytica did, and more.

Please google for information about Carol Davidsen, director for media analytics for Obama's 2012 campaign and Ken Strasma, Targeting Director for the 2008 Obama and 2004 Kerry campaigns.

Apparently Christopher Wylie (the renegade from Cambridge in the crosshairs of facebook) learned the craft from about micro-targeting and data politics from Ken Strasma.

If you are search engine impaired, you can start here...

https://heavy.com/news/2018/03...

Any disreputable news site will cover a number of Antifa cop shootings. There was one within the last 72 hours, look it up.

FTFY.

Your so-called "antifa" cop shooter was Matthew Riehl who's facebook page was full of pepes and other alt-reich shit.

But how many of those are old shit you can get in the bargain bin on the PC and other consoles like Skyrim and Shovel Knight? Everyone seems to forget that the Wii U got third party titles the first year of its release as well, but they were all older titles and graphically inferior compared to what everybody else got.

The Nintendo fanboys can scream and mod me down but this is EXACTLY how the Wii U started, with inferior ports with lower graphics and a handful of first party titles. The first year you can't really judge as that is when the hardcore Nintendo fans are buying, all those that have every version of Mario going back to Mario Bros on the NES, the first year of Wii U really wasn't bad either and if the press hadn't shit on it out of the gate? It might have done even better...but that doesn't equal having legs.

Lets see how this thing does in year 2 when the other 2 and PC are getting much better graphics than its capable of generating, lets see how it does when the regular players figure out that top titles everyone wants like Cuphead won't be coming to Switch and lets see how those sales are this time next year when they realize they will almost never get the big titles at launch or even within a year of launch. Personally I wanted to like the Switch, I really did, but when you've had 2 consoles in a row with effectively zero third party support? You don't do shit that will make it really really hard for those third party devs to support you. Everyone else has gone X86, Nintendo went ARM and the ARM fanboys can scream and get in line to mod me down but ARM on its best day just cannot compete with X86 and this means a dev can write code and have it run on everyone BUT the Switch...now why are they gonna sink all that money to port to Switch when they can just stick with X86 and have everyone else covered?

Google never revealed his name, but the dude voluntarily gave it to Bloomberg. Now other sites have dug up his picture...

From Heavy.com

A family member posted on Facebook, “He sent me a snapchat shooting a bookshelf of encyclopedias and said lets see how many books it would go through it didn’t make it past the first book but its different if you have 20 books stacked than just 1, dammit man i can’t believe it.”

Diff AC here... I'm the one who pointed out Dan White.

Well said, but one Q... re your sig... in which state?

When extracting tears from some of my more lefty friends who go one and on about Russians, the FBI, hacking, sexism, racism (basically everything other than Hillary not being a good candidate)... I will remind them that Jill Stein being on the ballot likely cost her 3 states (and the Presidency): http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/...

While you may have voted for Stein, if in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania, they can still claim you did by not voting for Clinton.

Oddly, none have pointed out that if Johnson wasn't on the ballot, Trumps margin would have been wider.

Of course, the correct answer at this point is simply: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"

>I am curious as to the shooter's personal politics and motivations.

You can read his own political views in his letters to the editor here:

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/...

He's a Bernie supporter who claims that Bush is a traitor, dislikes Hillary, and hates Trump.

The Portland hate crime shooter was also a Bernie supporter who hated Hillary and Trump.

Just in NY: http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/...

but that seemed to help Hillary quite a bit so I assumed it was more "home cooking" DNC stuff.

The leaker is Reality Leigh Winner who was arrested by the FBI on June 3rd.

FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the president, unlike political appointees.

Lots of loaded words here. Let's turn to what the liberal media was saying when Comey was attacking Hillary: yes, you can fire them, and in fact Clinton did. Also the 10-year rule was a reaction to J Edgar Hoover, so it may have been meant to put a cap on future 48-year terms, limiting the FBI director's power, not the President's.

The @POTUS account retweeted his Nordstrom tweet, so yes. Plus Kellanne Conway was busy telling people to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/0...

http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Okay, thanks for answering my question anyway. Apparently that article is indeed where that rumor started (link), though the only thing that actually happened was that they stopped taking new applications for a while while they redid the existing applications. There were no bans, and new refugees continued come in during this time.

It is because Left Wingers keep parroting "Clinton won the Popular Vote" as if that mattered.

Except it does. Why?

Because it shows Trump is LYING about a landslide.

If you weren't a partisan hack, you'd oppose that too, and point out the real facts. You can't though, because again, you're a partisan hack.

Which you can't even admit, but have to lie about and pretend you're some kind of neutral observer. Who consistently repeats right-wing lies. Huh.

You think we're dumb as you are? We're not, we spot your lies.

When liberals offer that up, it opens up every other comparison out there. Hillary lost the election, popular vote doesn't count. If you wanted it to count, the vote totals would change, substantially.

Whah-whah. It does count. Because that way, we know exactly how broken the Electoral College system is, and no, not every other comparison. Your false allegations about Hillary losing in 49 states, for example. Trump's assertions of a landslide. Those are still lying bullshit.

A lot of Republicans in California don't vote because what is the point?

All evidence indicates a lot of Americans don't vote, period.

Turnout drop is arguable, but even that aside, 90 million non-voters. That's how Trump was able to win Wisconsin with fewer votes than the losing side got in 2004.

OK. Here's a few.

On the other side, we have some pictures of clearly in-tact disposable propane bottles and nothing that could even potentially explode one. It's actually pretty hard to make such a container burst and without a strong oxidizer, good luck getting the gas to actually burn.

OK. Here's a few.

On the other side, we have some pictures of clearly in-tact disposable propane bottles and nothing that could even potentially explode one. It's actually pretty hard to make such a container burst and without a strong oxidizer, good luck getting the gas to actually burn.

> now he's doing a god damn victory tour, who does that?

Hitler. Literally. The last time someone held post-election political rallies was 1930 germany.

Fortunately, Trump's rallies seem be kind of anemic. Like the one in Fayetteville, NC Or the one in Iowa where he got less than 5,000 people and had to use the smaller Hy-vee convention hall instead of the adjoining wells-fargo arena.

Colin Powell owned AOL? That is one hell of a private email server.

(number 3 here: http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/... )

Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell

No, it was not. Not unless you share the misconception, that any questioning of a Black President is racist — the notion I ridicule at the top of this sub-thread. And, of course, Trump didn't invent it. Clinton's campaign, apparently, didn't either, but they did carry the torch before Trump picked it up.

then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well

That was his father's... If you looked carefully at Hillary's father, you'd find her being drastically different from him.

And whereas you need to go all the way back to when Confederate flag was cool and God hated fags to smear Trump, Hillary's campaign proved themselves racist in 2016.

Reference please. This says just the opposite.

Unsurprisingly, your rhetorical spew didn't quote a single word from the article I linked. Let me help you out:

Donald Trump is rumored to appoint Myron Ebell, a climate change denier, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Next, carefully compare that quote to my statement above:

Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor .

So, you expect other people to predict what will be published or commented-on IN THE FUTURE?

Are you serious, or just seriously lacking in the ability to evaluate arguments in chronological order?
  . .

I know reading comprehension is really undervalued these days...

You are a walking, talking example of FAIL in reading comprehension.

My search pulled up that he came in shy of the 5% mark. He was projected to be over, but polls were off (shocking I know)

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/...

Unsurprisingly, your rhetorical spew didn't quote a single word from the article I linked. Let me help you out:

Donald Trump is rumored to appoint Myron Ebell, a climate change denier, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Next, carefully compare that quote to my statement above:

Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor .

I know reading comprehension is really undervalued these days, but give it a try -- the results may amaze you.

Thanks.

2. The SA article presents this as an absolute fact, but then essentially says "a little birdie told me so." Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor.

Oh, the stupid. It hurts. It really fucking hurts to click on such a link as @SlaveToTheGrind provided. The facts presented in the link allow even the casual observer to note that the cited 'guy in lab-coat' is a PR flack.

I know that you were trying to argue, and not troll. But, oh, Flying H. Spaghetti Monster, you picked a 'supporting link' that actually demolished your own argument. Sorry.

I gently encourage you to verify your sources before posting them as support for a Comment. It saves everyone a lot of time.

Thanks.

1. The SA article is dated September 26, but the submitter carefully worded the opening sentence to make it sound like a post-election event ("Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government"). Those people we call "editors" either didn't check it or didn't care.
2. The SA article presents this as an absolute fact, but then essentially says "a little birdie told me so." Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor.

They were ALL being racist.

So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?

Trump lied through his teeth about Duke.

Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.

Show me proof that he's biased against other races.

Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.

The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area.

Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...

He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today."

If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?

Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite. And Seddique Mateen — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter. and Lezley McSpadden, whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...

If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.

They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.

The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation. That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder.

Good luck with that. The sister of ambassador Chris Stevens has also been asking these people to please STFU already, so naturally she's getting slimed as delusional and complicit.

A few tasteless emails does not in any way support the idea of a conspiracy.

What's the exact number of emails required to support the idea of a conspiracy? We can leave out subjective adjectives describing the emails for the purpose of counting them.

Here's one, that email is sent to the DNC's finance director describing half a million or so dollars in checks that are coming in, and where they should be allocated, with a request for a confirmation of their arrival. The DNC's national finance director replies with "Don't send me an email like this again." That seems like a strange response from a finance director to an email about funds that are about to be received.

There is zero chance Bernie would have won with different DNC leadership.

Last election there were 26 debates in the Democratic primary, this time there were originally 6, with 3 more added. There is every chance that Bernie would have done better if he received the same level of support as Clinton, and if the DNC were interested in exposing the candidates as much as possible instead of sheltering them so that Hillary wouldn't be challenged.

If fact, he would have done worse because we will be getting rid of caucuses as we modernize. They are a horrible idea that force people to not want to vote in the primary, It's not wonder the high energized Sanders fans did well there.

Bernie did well when more people voted. If caucuses made people not want to vote, then it stands to reason that Bernie would have done better without caucuses.

Sanders also did significantly worse among blacks and hispanics and much of the south.

Isn't that strange? A guy who has a 50+ year record of fighting for civil rights does worse with black people than a woman whose husband signed a bill that incarcerated so many of them. It's almost as if the black people didn't realize the qualifications of the two candidates. If only the candidates had more exposure and more media coverage. If only there was a way to do that.

Hillary had the same 15-20 point lead on Trump that Sanders had.

Sanders consistently did better than Clinton versus Trump. Several polls showed Trump beating Clinton, for a long time.

The difference is nobody thought Sander's would win

The 13+ million people who voted for him did. The people who were convinced that he wasn't going to win are some of the people who just resigned. Here is DWS convincing the rest of the people at the DNC that he's not going to win.

Just be glad Sander did that good.

Go fuck yourself, we could have had real substantive change and instead we got shafted, again, by the same people and the same system that has been shafting us for years, and now they're trying to tell us how much we need to vote for them. They can go fuck themselves, they aren't going to nominate the second most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then whine to me how I need to vote for her just because she's facing the most disliked candidate. It was their choice to railroad her through the process, that wasn't my choice. I'm not voting for that bullshit, I'm not going to validate that by putting my stamp on it. I'm not going to vote for a party that only looks out for itself.

If you don't then you will just destroy any chance of Sander's platform not being forgotten and replaced with another name.. since it's just the generic Democratic platform.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Clinton will honor

A few tasteless emails does not in any way support the idea of a conspiracy.

What's the exact number of emails required to support the idea of a conspiracy? We can leave out subjective adjectives describing the emails for the purpose of counting them.

Here's one, that email is sent to the DNC's finance director describing half a million or so dollars in checks that are coming in, and where they should be allocated, with a request for a confirmation of their arrival. The DNC's national finance director replies with "Don't send me an email like this again." That seems like a strange response from a finance director to an email about funds that are about to be received.

There is zero chance Bernie would have won with different DNC leadership.

Last election there were 26 debates in the Democratic primary, this time there were originally 6, with 3 more added. There is every chance that Bernie would have done better if he received the same level of support as Clinton, and if the DNC were interested in exposing the candidates as much as possible instead of sheltering them so that Hillary wouldn't be challenged.

If fact, he would have done worse because we will be getting rid of caucuses as we modernize. They are a horrible idea that force people to not want to vote in the primary, It's not wonder the high energized Sanders fans did well there.

Bernie did well when more people voted. If caucuses made people not want to vote, then it stands to reason that Bernie would have done better without caucuses.

Sanders also did significantly worse among blacks and hispanics and much of the south.

Isn't that strange? A guy who has a 50+ year record of fighting for civil rights does worse with black people than a woman whose husband signed a bill that incarcerated so many of them. It's almost as if the black people didn't realize the qualifications of the two candidates. If only the candidates had more exposure and more media coverage. If only there was a way to do that.

Hillary had the same 15-20 point lead on Trump that Sanders had.

Sanders consistently did better than Clinton versus Trump. Several polls showed Trump beating Clinton, for a long time.

The difference is nobody thought Sander's would win

The 13+ million people who voted for him did. The people who were convinced that he wasn't going to win are some of the people who just resigned. Here is DWS convincing the rest of the people at the DNC that he's not going to win.

Just be glad Sander did that good.

Go fuck yourself, we could have had real substantive change and instead we got shafted, again, by the same people and the same system that has been shafting us for years, and now they're trying to tell us how much we need to vote for them. They can go fuck themselves, they aren't going to nominate the second most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then whine to me how I need to vote for her just because she's facing the most disliked candidate. It was their choice to railroad her through the process, that wasn't my choice. I'm not voting for that bullshit, I'm not going to validate that by putting my stamp on it. I'm not going to vote for a party that only looks out for itself.

If you don't then you will just destroy any chance of Sander's platform not being forgotten and replaced with another name.. since it's just the generic Democratic platform.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Clinton will honor

The lawyers behind the class action lawsuit list 6 claims:

The first is fraud against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton. The second is negligent misrepresentation. The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders’ campaign. The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor information from hackers.

The problem with the emails is their source.

That's what Clinton and the DNC would like you to believe anyway. The problem isn't the source, the problem is the content. That and the fact that their systems were exposed at all.

But yeah, that's going to be the line, shoot the messenger. Blame Wikileaks, blame Russians, whatever it takes to distract from the actual content, the messages which show that the DNC was undermining the Sanders campaign as soon as they saw it as a potential threat to them pushing through the nominee they wanted. They show that the DNC engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the democratic process by not remaining neutral, by making sure that the person that they personally wanted to get nominated actually did get nominated, regardless of what other people wanted. They purposefully slanted the field in favor of their candidate. They violated their charter and are possibly liable for damages (join the lawsuit if you donated to Sanders). Past DNC chairs have also come out to say that this was completely unacceptable and should have been dealt with immediately, which of course was out of the question here since Wasserman-Schultz doesn't even try to pretend that she is anything but a Clinton surrogate.

That's great, but we must ask: what editing has been done here?

Well, apparently so much editing has taken place that no one at the DNC is alleging that there was any editing, and that the Clinton campaign and Obama both put pressure on Wasserman-Schultz to resign, which she finally did. Sounds like a bunch of fake emails, right?

This is a bunch of a bullshit spin, more of the same from the DNC and their loyalists. All of the attempts to deflect the story towards Russia, or Wikileaks, or whatever, basically amounts to "We would like to issue an apology: we apologize for getting caught." The DNC does not want to address the content of the emails, like you said, they would rather try to deflect the discussion and attack the messenger and go one acting like Hillary is the future of this country.

The line that we're going to hear repeated over and over during the convention in Philadelphia is that everyone needs to band together in order to defeat Trump. The problem with that narrative is that the DNC pushed through a nomination for a candidate who has serious problems with her ability to beat Trump, and they pushed out the candidate who consistently beat Trump in polls. If it was true that what they really want is to beat Trump then they should have nominated the better-performing candidate, not start themselves out with a handicap. Their goal is not and never has been to just beat Trump, their goal is to elect Clinton. They don't want the best candidate, they want Clinton.

Example:

Do NOT click on this URL: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/

On the other hand, this is a perfectly safe Mickey Mouse cartoon site: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/

How many times have YOU been misdirected to a website to which you had no intention of going? And that idiot wants it to be illegal?

Example:

Do NOT click on this URL: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/

On the other hand, this is a perfectly safe Mickey Mouse cartoon site: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/

How many times have YOU been misdirected to a website to which you had no intention of going? And that idiot wants it to be illegal?

1. He was a thug for his entire adult life. That is justified by his record. You can read 46 pages of his previous activities here It's at the top of the page, but takes a moment to load since it's from disqus.

2. There is no reason whatsoever that this career criminal wouldn't have continued being a violent thug. Obviously 2-1/2 years of hard labor didn't change him, so jail isn't the answer.

3. There is absolutely zero objective evidence that the world would be a safer place with him, but there's plenty that the world wasn't when he was alive.

If you read elsewhere, I go into detail about the particulars of this incident; the shooting was justified, and the 2nd video proves it. Even after being tazed and dragged to the ground, he was still fighting back and refusing to be cuffed. The video also proves that the cops knew he had a gun in his pocket - they took it out without having to search for it.

So, aggressive armed perp, what would you do if you're on top of him and you can't control him? You know he has a gun and that he's probably not going to hand it over peacefully. You'd shoot, or be shot. Take your pick, but most of us aren't willing to be martyrs.

I know, but it's not hard to find his many previous arrest records right at the top of this page. (Note: these 46 pages may not be all of them).

Wow. Ridiculous. Ignore the fact that there are Muslim nations that execute homosexuals. The religion itself is extremely homophobic.

Shrug. The Torah puts the death penalty on male homosexuality ("lying with a man as if he were a woman"), so you get the same basic religious imperative for Jews and Christians ("I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them").

So in all of the book religions sexual tolerance of male homosexuality is an explicit choice of doing away with an explicit taboo carrying penalty of death. Now "modern practitioners" of the old religions do a whole lot of pragmatic cherry-picking just what parts of the rules they consider binding and which ones they will blissfully gloss over. "Uncovering a woman's flow of blood"? A stoning for gynecologists and their patients seems in order.

So Islam as such is not worse in homophobia than the rest. It's really a question of the choices of modern practitioners.

YOU

ARE

FULL

OF

SHIT.

WATCH: ISIS Throws 2 ‘Gay Men’ Off Roof & Stones Them

new video purportedly released by the Islamic State shows two men accused of homosexuality being thrown from a building and stoned by a crowd once they hit the ground.

Yes, really. So you can buy a rifles with a Bible verse on it. That is completely equivalent to Muslims tossing gays off buildings or Iran executing gays. Yes, completely equivalent! Why, put a Bible verse on your gun and you're as bad as burning 19 women to death because they wouldn't let you rape them.

Go up to a Christian in Rome and state you're gay. The worst that will happen is they'll tell you you're a sinner and you need to repent or go to hell. Now do the same in Mecca, and the Government will try you and sentence you to execution. Yes, I can see your point. A verse on a firearm is 100% equivalent with how you'll be treated by the rest of Islam for coming out as gay!

Roomba could use some hard competition.

There's a dozen hard competitors to Roomba.
http://thesweethome.com/review...
http://heavy.com/tech/2015/02/...

I would happily take a President Camacho over having to deal with a Hillary Clinton. The woman has little chance of beating Trump. She's at a huge disadvantage because she triggers a very negative reaction at the genetic level in the vast majority of males. She sounds like that nagging aunt that you wanted to slap around when you were young. That along with her insane stance on trying to push gun control will doom her by pushing a good number of Democrats over to Trump.

While I think you accurately portray the emotional feelings that some (or even "many") have to Clinton, I don't think you have accurately captured the feelings of the electorate overall. Maybe people are lying to the pollsters or somehow the pollsters are doing everything wrong, but Clinton's favourability ratings have been much higher than Trumps since he entered the Republican race, and that does not seem to have changed much:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

http://elections.huffingtonpos...

Now, I am not saying that any of this guarantees a Clinton win, but I think we need to be careful to not project our own feelings about the candidates onto what "the masses" are feeling. Of course being brilliant, insightful individuals with superior congnitive skills, "the masses" SHOULD feel like we do, but often they somehow don't seem to. Strangely enough, on contentious issues like gun control, abortion, ecconomic policies, and everything else - a large fraction of the population DOES NOT AGREE with our right and proper views! That is why they are contentious issues.

Sure, things are likely to change over the course of the campaign, but right now more people dislike Trump (58%) than dislike Clinton (50%) and more people like Clinton (42%) than like Trump (33%).

Here is some more combined polling data from a few weeks back, which seems to be even more extreme:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/...

It may be hard (or almost impossible) to understand WHY so many people do not share our good and correct feelings about these candidates, but to think that Clinton "triggers a very negative reaction at the genetic level in the vast majority of males" is just wrong unless "vast majority" means something different than what I think it means - the data just doesn't support it.

Actually, she's not winning free and clear; most of her significant wins have a cloud of large-scale voter suppression over them.

http://usuncut.com/politics/ne...
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
http://thinkprogress.org/polit...

And at least in NY that likely would have disproportionately older people (it seemed to hit people with old registrations more) and minorities (because they always get hit the worst by voting issues). Aka Hillary's base.

Whatever you think of Hillary's politics she won because more people wanted to vote for her and more people did vote for her.

The door to this was left open when 191 million voter records were leaked, making re-registration with edited details trivial. The earlier scandal over the DNC voter records being open allow for specific targeting of those not supporting Clinton which is the demographic reporting issues.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/...

Quite simply, yes, there's overwhelming signs that this election is being heavily rigged and in dirty

Ok, lets look at the first piece of evidence from that link.

Shelly Berry shared on Facebook that she had proof her New York voter registration was changed. Her registration was switched from Democrat to unaffiliated and she was told the change was made in 2012.

So Hillary's dastardly plan to rig the primary by specifically suppressing Bernie supporters began four years ago?

Otherwise do you have any idea how many people would need to be involved to mess with enough registration records to really affect the democratic primary? That's a 9-11 truther level of conspiracy theory.

Sure there are problems with the US's voting system, it's a disorganized mess, it may be worse this year or it might just look worse because of the extra scrutiny.

But voting issues + your favourite candidate not winning aren't the same as "overwhelming signs that this election is being heavily rigged and in dirty".

Actually, she's not winning free and clear; most of her significant wins have a cloud of large-scale voter suppression over them.

http://usuncut.com/politics/ne...
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
http://thinkprogress.org/polit...

And huge number of affidavit ballots cast in New York have simply not been counted.

Across the country, voters that have long been registered Democrat have discovered their registration details tampered to make their participation in closed primaries impossible. The door to this was left open when 191 million voter records were leaked, making re-registration with edited details trivial. The earlier scandal over the DNC voter records being open allow for specific targeting of those not supporting Clinton which is the demographic reporting issues.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/...

Quite simply, yes, there's overwhelming signs that this election is being heavily rigged and in dirty

Boeing collects $13B in subsidies from taxpayer https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://america.aljazeera.com/o... http://www.cheatsheet.com/busi... then spies on taxpayer. http://heavy.com/tech/2014/11/... http://www.wired.com/2014/11/f... http://www.usnews.com/news/art... Not cool, Boeing.

Uhhh there isn't an investigation because it doesn't support the political narrative? Its no different than how when a black teen recently committed an armed robbery and was shot running at the cop with a loaded stolen firearm you'll get protesters saying the cop should have just stood there and "black lives matter" signs and tons of press coverage, but when Baltimore reaches triple digit body counts of blacks slaughtering blacks? It'll barely get a peep on the local news.

The reason why is simple, one lets you push a political narrative, blacks are always victims, more gun control, etc while the other? Does not. If Wu is being targeted? You can push stories on transgender issues, sexism, cyberbullying, violence in the media, you can probably get several weeks worth of angles out of that one which will also touch on political hot buttons that politicians can use one way or another...if Wu is just another narcissist hypocrite looking for attention and $$$? You won't even get 2 stories out of that one.

Ever since the birth of CNN and 24 hour news its all become about narratives and themes, see ANY of the MSM looking at both sides of gamergate? Even attempting to be objective? Of course not, because sensationalism and political narratives that result in "us VS them" sell, the other is just the facts, boring. And like it or not there really isn't any objective reporting anymore, every news org is either hard left or hard right and if you are hard left you certainly aren't gonna run a story showing a "champion of feminism" is actually a scammer, not only will that not follow the narrative but it might help "the other side" and we just can't have that.

I really wish it weren't so, because even though I'm pretty far to the left I want to be given the evidence and be allowed to make up my own mind like a big boy, but all we get today from the MSM (and sadly the feds, just look at how little was done when it comes to things which goes against the political narrative, from the fake yellowcake papers to fast & furious) is propaganda for one side or the other. All we can do as thinking adults is do as much research as possible from a variety of sources and make up our own minds.

R or D doesn't matter if they agree to allow this type of bullshit they are assholes. Seriously how much are we spending on the witch hunt for terrorists? Can they show results of thwarted attacks to merit such spending? If not the assholes should be removed from office. On a side note I'd be interested to find out if there are any ties between these people and those that have the contracts to provide hardware for this project.

What? In Our America?
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/money-nsa-vote/
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://www.digitaljournal.com/...
http://heavy.com/news/2014/01/...