No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
> She NEVER laughed about the rape.
See, I didn't say that. I said she "laughed when interviewed about it" and that raping kids isn't funny. Laughing about your client being guilty (which you seem to imply by saying it was the polygraph joke) doesn't help things any.
> though it would normally be unethical if this statement had been public before the trial the statement was months after the trial and acquittal of rape charges.
He wasn't acquitted, he plead down to a lesser charge.
> I listened to it, you clearly did not.
While I'm not clear on why you think that, I have to note that you misstated the claim I made about her laugh and then you decided that he was somehow acquitted, despite the Snopes article clearly debunking that claim:
Finally, Hillary didn't "free" the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, of which the judge suspended four years and allowed two months credit of time already served towards the remaining year:
> Had the statement been truly unethical by the state's standards she would have been punished by her legal board.
That requires someone to file a complaint with the bar and I don't think she's even a practicing attorney any more.
> You are clearly biased with a line to sell.
Yes, but so is everyone. Anyone who says they have no bias is trying to sell you something, unless maybe they truly have no skin in the game.
Nah, it's worse than that, looks like they were sniffing traffic at either the ISP of one of the two endpoints or a backbone.
If there were something here, you'd expect them to talk about finding data in the ICMP echo requests. You'd expect them to communicate over something normal like SSH. You'd expect some evidence that there was something illegal or improper going on here (other than, y'know, spying on other people's network traffic....).
Their audience is apparently morons who don't know what a ping is.
"What the researcher saw "was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue": "
A ping is an ICMP echo request. They can have data, but it's the same both ways and it's generally nothing meaningful. I get random pings and crap from everywhere, including Russia, China, etc. along with port scans and everything else. Frankly this is utter BS without more evidence than a random server responding to some pings and not others.
It's also not clear how they were able to spy on this traffic without working at an ISP (where spying on your customers is generally frowned upon). But if they were in the middle of this, they could simply have inserted their own pings by spoofing the source address of some traffic. The article was a sad waste of time. There are lots of allegations that are based on nothing at all.
I already covered your other items and I already stated that she was required to defend him, so you're arguing a point already discussed. And no, presenting that kind of evidence as anonymous hearsay was even then rather dubious. Snopes mentions the victims wanting the plea because the trial was so horrible for them. It was horrible precisely because of conduct like that, which led to it being outlawed via rape shield laws. I note that you do not, because you cannot, rebut the fact that it was unethical of her to imply that she had secret knowledge of her client's guilt, though.
As for this: > There is NOTHING unusual about this.
Just how many other people can you name who laugh when talking about the rape of 12-year-olds? I confess that I'm not acquainted with any, to the best of my knowledge.
They have an angle. For example, when Snopes "debunked" how Hillary laughed while talking about the rape of a 12-year old girl, they went for the biggest strawman they could find. Yes, it's true that she was forced to defend that guy. Normal people aren't complaining about that part, just about how she did so.
See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor?
Hillary implied that her client was guilty by her mistrust of the polygraph results where he was telling the "truth" about not raping the girl. But Snopes will summarize this as "she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty." Right, she only implied guilt based on inside knowledge that she should hold in confidence as an attorney. That's only a highly unethical violation of her attorney client privilege to imply things like this. But it's okay! She only mistrusts polygraphs--like the one she had him take and which he passed--because of this case with this man. She didn't come out and say he's guilty! It's not like you'd have to be an idiot to fail to understand the clear implication. Nothing to see here!
They say "she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story,"" instead they point out that she just put forth an anonymous source who allegedly told her the girl was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." This kind of defense is exactly why we have rape shield laws nowadays--because people got fed up with this scummy tactic being used by defense lawyers and outlawed it. Yes, she may have some excuse of professional obligation there--this turns into a murky legal question. But morally? People thought this was such a disgusting, hurtful way to attack rape victims that it's been outlawed. Please let that sink in for a moment. It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally? [1]
So the thing is they really do massage how they frame the articles, which "facts" or formulations thereof they try to debunk--picking strawmen to attack when it suits their claims, and then they make summaries that are misleading. It's a more subtle form of bias with the intent to mislead, but it's clear enough if you actually read everything and do your own research. They simply don't expect anyone to actually bother to read things and I hate to say it, but they're usually right that people won't.
[1] Whataboutists: I'm also disturbed by some of the allegations against Trump. However, there is some evidence pointing to deliberate fabrications, making that less clear than it might be.
The funny thing about that is that there are some indications that the USA created the whole mess to begin with, hoping to destabilize the region and swoop in and take over if you trawl through the Wikileaks emails. I haven't seen them complaining that they're fake or altered since it came out that the DKIM signatures validate the emails as authentic.
Feel free to argue, though: those are mostly videos of Hillary talking. Of course, if you want to say that you don't believe the things she says, I'll be forced to agree with you.
> You can't pardon someone for future charges, idiot.
A lot of people keep repeating that, but we all know how Richard M. Nixon was pardoned, so nobody who is old enough to remember him is ever going to buy that.
All that really matters is whether the leaks are true. In the case of Podesta's emails, we can validate them by the DKIM signature. We know how Podesta was hacked, though, it was exactly this phishing email. See how that is a bitly link to "reset" his Google password? What I don't know is how they could possibly miss that GMail would flag this saying something like "THIS IS NOT FROM GOOGLE YOU MORON."
Those aren't your only choices and they still pale in comparison to the major party candidates. I mean, the exotic one-legged gay tiger keeper has nothing on these ads:
If she was going to do that, though, I honestly think she would've done it for the election.
Or maybe it's the plan for November? I dunno. The whole thing has been completely nuts, so I'm expecting to wake up in Bizarro world any day now (not too sure I haven't).
Hillary seems to be basically willing to start WW3 with Russia over Syria, so what good is voting for her going to do? Tell them you don't care how corrupt they get, you're too afraid to ever vote 3rd party? I haven't been keeping a close eye, sorry, but there's what? Maybe a 2% chance of Trump? Too high? And you're *still* too much of a coward to vote 3rd party and send a message?
If that's supposed to be the worst case, at least Trump wouldn't send us to war with his buddy Putin, they'd just work out some kinda back room deal or whatever. Sure, it might be a rough 4 years, but even that doesn't sound as bad as letting the parties know they can get away with just anything and starting yet another war. Maybe next time they wouldn't conspire to sabotage their best candidate? You do realize that Tim Kaine was basically promised the VP slot so that Clinton's friend Debbie could take over the DNC, right? There are also emails in there with people giving fake support to Bernie so they could turn on him later and capture his voters afterwards. But go read the damn emails yourself. There's a ton of crap in there. Her own people talk about her (and Chelsea Clinton) being the kind who will kiss you on the cheek, then stab you in the back as well as the front.
Or is it better now because so many people are all eager to #DraftOurDaughters and #FightForHer or whatever the latest nonsense is on Twitter? I don't understand people sometimes.....
There were a ton of other indictments in Whitewater, too, including lots of conspiracy charges as I remember things. Just not the Clintons. I believe it was Vince Foster who committed suicide over it, as well.
I can't say that I see her getting indicted, though. If nothing else, Obama could pardon her on his way out.
Threatening to appoint a special prosecutor to actually look into all the crimes that have been uncovered in the Podesta emails is a far cry from simply throwing someone in jail. It probably won't matter, though--Obama can simply pardon her before leaving. If he's not willing to, that will tell you something right there. There's actually no love lost between the two, if you read the emails. They're already mad at Obama for not owning up to knowing about her private server usage. So he's hopefully too smart for that.
And it's interesting she'd flee to Dubai of all places. I'd have figured she'd run off somewhere with Huma.
You can also write in someone, even yourself. The point is to send a message that we don't accept any sort of criminal scum for President, regardless of party.
Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.
But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in votersâ(TM) minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), Iâ(TM)m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that
[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'
Lizard conspiracy? Please don't put words in my mouth. I've said no such thing. All I said was that most journalists don't bother linking sources and that I could've told you about some of the stories just coming out today quite some time ago because I've been following the money flows.
I know what I know because I've looked at the emails. I've looked at the people arguing both sides. I've looked at corroborating evidence. I won't believe something just because some yahoo published it, but if I can find contemporaneous, corroborating evidence from many sources? Then we get somewhere. See, regarding all the random claims of sexual abuse against both Clintons and Trump, when people suffer serious harm, they generally go to the police or court system first. If Trump did all that, why was it hidden for years or decades until just now? We have lots of that kind of thing for the Clintons, you know, and it wouldn't make sense for it to have been produced to win an election.
As for Podesta & co., we have their private emails, detailing the thoughts they don't dare tell us. We know that they're real, because the DKIM signatures validate, so all lies to the contrary, they said what they said. If you don't believe the corroborated, easily available evidence of graft involving the Clinton Foundation (which is finally hitting the papers now), then I don't know what to say to you, except that your position appears to be less based on fact.
Now that I've said that, I'm sure you can stuff words in my mouth to say otherwise, because you just did that in your last reply.
> You mean he didn't say he grabbed women's genitals?
He said women "let" him do that. When Bill was accused, it was in a court of law. He eventually turned in his license to practice law in order to avoid disbarment. Trump's accusers all appear in the 11th hour of a high-stakes political campaign, in the media rather than in a courtroom. Mere allegations are pretty cheap, no? I mean, we also have this old video Hillary Clinton from years ago.
So unless you want to vote for someone accused of sex crimes, make sure you vote 3rd party.
> You mean he didn't praise Putin?
Beats going to war with them. I mean, Clinton's advisor Podesta seems to think our current strategies will lead to nuclear war and there's another one talking about Trump's "bromance" with Putin going way back. Either way, I'd personally rather avoid wars with nuclear powers, though I don't know about you.
I won't dispute the polls, they really look bad for Trump. Hardly worth the effort of voting if you know you'll win, though.
If he disputes the election, it won't be the first. How could anyone forget Bush v. Gore? There are reports of voting machine anomalies in Texas, as well, so be sure to check that your ballot matches your vote.
Saying the press isn't biased is just silly though. They all have their biases and everyone has some bias they agree with that they are less critical of. So it's a bad standard to hold them to. Instead, you should hold media outlets to be truthful and to investigate things--especially those things they agree with--to support them with verifiable facts. Truthfulness and verifiable sources are what people should be holding to, but trying to get sources out of "journalists" nowadays might as well be pulling teeth. Nobody wants to lose pageviews.
From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: john@algpolling.com
Date: 2015-07-15 19:33
Subject: Re: you call it
Yup On Jul 15, 2015 5:21 PM, "John Anzalone" wrote:
> âoeThis agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear > war in the Persian Gulf⦠This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain > gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler.â > > â" Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), quoted by BuzzFeed > , > on the nuclear deal reached with Iran. > > > â" John Anzalone > Anzalone Liszt Grove Research > 334-387-3121 > www.algpolling.com > twitter: @AnzaloneLiszt > >
And don't tell me the email is fake unless you can prove that the DKIM signature has been tampered with.
Slashdot Mirror
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
> She NEVER laughed about the rape.
See, I didn't say that. I said she "laughed when interviewed about it" and that raping kids isn't funny. Laughing about your client being guilty (which you seem to imply by saying it was the polygraph joke) doesn't help things any.
> though it would normally be unethical if this statement had been public before the trial the statement was months after the trial and acquittal of rape charges.
He wasn't acquitted, he plead down to a lesser charge.
> I listened to it, you clearly did not.
While I'm not clear on why you think that, I have to note that you misstated the claim I made about her laugh and then you decided that he was somehow acquitted, despite the Snopes article clearly debunking that claim:
> Had the statement been truly unethical by the state's standards she would have been punished by her legal board.
That requires someone to file a complaint with the bar and I don't think she's even a practicing attorney any more.
> You are clearly biased with a line to sell.
Yes, but so is everyone. Anyone who says they have no bias is trying to sell you something, unless maybe they truly have no skin in the game.
Nah, it's worse than that, looks like they were sniffing traffic at either the ISP of one of the two endpoints or a backbone.
If there were something here, you'd expect them to talk about finding data in the ICMP echo requests. You'd expect them to communicate over something normal like SSH. You'd expect some evidence that there was something illegal or improper going on here (other than, y'know, spying on other people's network traffic....).
Their audience is apparently morons who don't know what a ping is.
The evidence we're given is this:
"What the researcher saw "was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue": "
A ping is an ICMP echo request. They can have data, but it's the same both ways and it's generally nothing meaningful. I get random pings and crap from everywhere, including Russia, China, etc. along with port scans and everything else. Frankly this is utter BS without more evidence than a random server responding to some pings and not others.
It's also not clear how they were able to spy on this traffic without working at an ISP (where spying on your customers is generally frowned upon). But if they were in the middle of this, they could simply have inserted their own pings by spoofing the source address of some traffic. The article was a sad waste of time. There are lots of allegations that are based on nothing at all.
> Seriously, anybody who believes ANY media source 100% without questioning -- even a "debunking" one -- is silly. Everyone has biases.
Yes, this is very true. I always look for the article's sources and follow them down to any actual evidence.
When this isn't possible, I tend to simply ignore the things which were said which could not be corroborated.
I already covered your other items and I already stated that she was required to defend him, so you're arguing a point already discussed. And no, presenting that kind of evidence as anonymous hearsay was even then rather dubious. Snopes mentions the victims wanting the plea because the trial was so horrible for them. It was horrible precisely because of conduct like that, which led to it being outlawed via rape shield laws. I note that you do not, because you cannot, rebut the fact that it was unethical of her to imply that she had secret knowledge of her client's guilt, though.
As for this:
> There is NOTHING unusual about this.
Just how many other people can you name who laugh when talking about the rape of 12-year-olds? I confess that I'm not acquainted with any, to the best of my knowledge.
> WRONG.
You work for them? :)
They have an angle. For example, when Snopes "debunked" how Hillary laughed while talking about the rape of a 12-year old girl, they went for the biggest strawman they could find. Yes, it's true that she was forced to defend that guy. Normal people aren't complaining about that part, just about how she did so.
See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor?
Hillary implied that her client was guilty by her mistrust of the polygraph results where he was telling the "truth" about not raping the girl. But Snopes will summarize this as "she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty." Right, she only implied guilt based on inside knowledge that she should hold in confidence as an attorney. That's only a highly unethical violation of her attorney client privilege to imply things like this. But it's okay! She only mistrusts polygraphs--like the one she had him take and which he passed--because of this case with this man. She didn't come out and say he's guilty! It's not like you'd have to be an idiot to fail to understand the clear implication. Nothing to see here!
They say "she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story,"" instead they point out that she just put forth an anonymous source who allegedly told her the girl was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." This kind of defense is exactly why we have rape shield laws nowadays--because people got fed up with this scummy tactic being used by defense lawyers and outlawed it. Yes, she may have some excuse of professional obligation there--this turns into a murky legal question. But morally? People thought this was such a disgusting, hurtful way to attack rape victims that it's been outlawed. Please let that sink in for a moment. It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally? [1]
So the thing is they really do massage how they frame the articles, which "facts" or formulations thereof they try to debunk--picking strawmen to attack when it suits their claims, and then they make summaries that are misleading. It's a more subtle form of bias with the intent to mislead, but it's clear enough if you actually read everything and do your own research. They simply don't expect anyone to actually bother to read things and I hate to say it, but they're usually right that people won't.
[1] Whataboutists: I'm also disturbed by some of the allegations against Trump. However, there is some evidence pointing to deliberate fabrications, making that less clear than it might be.
At least this time it's not Bill's wiener that's causing problems for Hillary.
Sad thing is, I thought this was a real response for a second because that's the current standard for political discourse.
The funny thing about that is that there are some indications that the USA created the whole mess to begin with, hoping to destabilize the region and swoop in and take over if you trawl through the Wikileaks emails. I haven't seen them complaining that they're fake or altered since it came out that the DKIM signatures validate the emails as authentic.
Really? Because this administration is waging a proxy war with Russia in Syria, and Hillary wants to create a no fly zone (which would put us at war with them), and she's the one telling everyone that the nukes launch 4 minutes after Hillary gives the order. The whole reason the satirical #DraftOurDaughters campaign (currently NSFW) was going on Twitter has merely served to highlight the fact that she's been very willing to go to war. I mean, it wasn't that long ago when Hillary was talking about how we would go to war with Iran.
Feel free to argue, though: those are mostly videos of Hillary talking. Of course, if you want to say that you don't believe the things she says, I'll be forced to agree with you.
> You can't pardon someone for future charges, idiot.
A lot of people keep repeating that, but we all know how Richard M. Nixon was pardoned, so nobody who is old enough to remember him is ever going to buy that.
All that really matters is whether the leaks are true. In the case of Podesta's emails, we can validate them by the DKIM signature. We know how Podesta was hacked, though, it was exactly this phishing email. See how that is a bitly link to "reset" his Google password? What I don't know is how they could possibly miss that GMail would flag this saying something like "THIS IS NOT FROM GOOGLE YOU MORON."
Similarly, whether or not that was American intelligence that hacked a top Russian aide, what's perhaps more worrying is that Hillary has been pushing for a no-fly-zone that would leave us shooting down Russian planes over Syria. To most people who know about the area, this sounds like a great way to start WWIII. This might help explain why she's so eager to to expand the draft so women can #FightForHer.
Those aren't your only choices and they still pale in comparison to the major party candidates. I mean, the exotic one-legged gay tiger keeper has nothing on these ads:
Draft Our Daughters
Trump on facing our toughest opponents
And I'm going to just have to echo Biden's reaction when he found out about Huma's ex-husband being the origin of Weinergate.
If she was going to do that, though, I honestly think she would've done it for the election.
Or maybe it's the plan for November? I dunno. The whole thing has been completely nuts, so I'm expecting to wake up in Bizarro world any day now (not too sure I haven't).
Hillary seems to be basically willing to start WW3 with Russia over Syria, so what good is voting for her going to do? Tell them you don't care how corrupt they get, you're too afraid to ever vote 3rd party? I haven't been keeping a close eye, sorry, but there's what? Maybe a 2% chance of Trump? Too high? And you're *still* too much of a coward to vote 3rd party and send a message?
If that's supposed to be the worst case, at least Trump wouldn't send us to war with his buddy Putin, they'd just work out some kinda back room deal or whatever. Sure, it might be a rough 4 years, but even that doesn't sound as bad as letting the parties know they can get away with just anything and starting yet another war. Maybe next time they wouldn't conspire to sabotage their best candidate? You do realize that Tim Kaine was basically promised the VP slot so that Clinton's friend Debbie could take over the DNC, right? There are also emails in there with people giving fake support to Bernie so they could turn on him later and capture his voters afterwards. But go read the damn emails yourself. There's a ton of crap in there. Her own people talk about her (and Chelsea Clinton) being the kind who will kiss you on the cheek, then stab you in the back as well as the front.
Or is it better now because so many people are all eager to #DraftOurDaughters and #FightForHer or whatever the latest nonsense is on Twitter? I don't understand people sometimes.....
There were a ton of other indictments in Whitewater, too, including lots of conspiracy charges as I remember things. Just not the Clintons. I believe it was Vince Foster who committed suicide over it, as well.
I can't say that I see her getting indicted, though. If nothing else, Obama could pardon her on his way out.
Threatening to appoint a special prosecutor to actually look into all the crimes that have been uncovered in the Podesta emails is a far cry from simply throwing someone in jail. It probably won't matter, though--Obama can simply pardon her before leaving. If he's not willing to, that will tell you something right there. There's actually no love lost between the two, if you read the emails. They're already mad at Obama for not owning up to knowing about her private server usage. So he's hopefully too smart for that.
And it's interesting she'd flee to Dubai of all places. I'd have figured she'd run off somewhere with Huma.
You can also write in someone, even yourself. The point is to send a message that we don't accept any sort of criminal scum for President, regardless of party.
Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.
Source
Source
Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).
The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.
Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.
Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.
This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.
There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.
Lizard conspiracy? Please don't put words in my mouth. I've said no such thing. All I said was that most journalists don't bother linking sources and that I could've told you about some of the stories just coming out today quite some time ago because I've been following the money flows.
I know what I know because I've looked at the emails. I've looked at the people arguing both sides. I've looked at corroborating evidence. I won't believe something just because some yahoo published it, but if I can find contemporaneous, corroborating evidence from many sources? Then we get somewhere. See, regarding all the random claims of sexual abuse against both Clintons and Trump, when people suffer serious harm, they generally go to the police or court system first. If Trump did all that, why was it hidden for years or decades until just now? We have lots of that kind of thing for the Clintons, you know, and it wouldn't make sense for it to have been produced to win an election.
As for Podesta & co., we have their private emails, detailing the thoughts they don't dare tell us. We know that they're real, because the DKIM signatures validate, so all lies to the contrary, they said what they said. If you don't believe the corroborated, easily available evidence of graft involving the Clinton Foundation (which is finally hitting the papers now), then I don't know what to say to you, except that your position appears to be less based on fact.
Now that I've said that, I'm sure you can stuff words in my mouth to say otherwise, because you just did that in your last reply.
> You mean he didn't say he grabbed women's genitals?
He said women "let" him do that. When Bill was accused, it was in a court of law. He eventually turned in his license to practice law in order to avoid disbarment. Trump's accusers all appear in the 11th hour of a high-stakes political campaign, in the media rather than in a courtroom. Mere allegations are pretty cheap, no? I mean, we also have this old video Hillary Clinton from years ago.
So unless you want to vote for someone accused of sex crimes, make sure you vote 3rd party.
> You mean he didn't praise Putin?
Beats going to war with them. I mean, Clinton's advisor Podesta seems to think our current strategies will lead to nuclear war and there's another one talking about Trump's "bromance" with Putin going way back. Either way, I'd personally rather avoid wars with nuclear powers, though I don't know about you.
I won't dispute the polls, they really look bad for Trump. Hardly worth the effort of voting if you know you'll win, though.
If he disputes the election, it won't be the first. How could anyone forget Bush v. Gore? There are reports of voting machine anomalies in Texas, as well, so be sure to check that your ballot matches your vote.
Saying the press isn't biased is just silly though. They all have their biases and everyone has some bias they agree with that they are less critical of. So it's a bad standard to hold them to. Instead, you should hold media outlets to be truthful and to investigate things--especially those things they agree with--to support them with verifiable facts. Truthfulness and verifiable sources are what people should be holding to, but trying to get sources out of "journalists" nowadays might as well be pulling teeth. Nobody wants to lose pageviews.
> You say that like the other two are a significant improvement.
They aren't, but disempowering the other two is. Not voting won't do that.
Putin isn't the one who has to worry about getting elected...
They seem to think we're looking at nuclear war. Don't know about you, but I'm not a fan:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/727
And don't tell me the email is fake unless you can prove that the DKIM signature has been tampered with.