The right has their anti-science wing but so does the left. The entire naturalist and animal rights movement within the Democratic party qualifies as anti-science. This is the wing that pushes for organic and natural solutions, claims vegetarian diets are more healthy, and wants GMO's to require labeling. I exclude those who want GMO labeling so they can boycott for economic reasons and risk to food supply control (Monsanto IS evil) unless they also believe GMO's are somehow harmful because they are GMO's.
There is nothing but pseudo-science and/or outright anti-science behind any of that.
No, it takes lining up four stick and dividing them in half. Count them, put them back together, count them. Then do the same with fingers, stones, etc until you are satisfied.
Faith is belief without evidence. Science however is not arithmetic and unlike arithmetic is not concrete. Science is however the best method we have for determining the most concrete answers possible given the proof available. It does require faith in the scientific method, however that method is explicitly designed to require the least faith possible in every conclusion and to abandon conclusions when they become contrary to evidence.
" I'm really rooting for a space-dilating inflation gravity; that could potentially resolve all black hole paradoxes by eliminating singularities and disjoint regions of spacetime, explain inflation, and greatly illuminate the nature of the Big Bang."
And warp space, enable a cool ftl drive, and cause ridges on the foreheads of those who work too close to it.
Okay, I'll just sit over here and work from the assumption that all else being equal people who have the means and the motive to do a thing and get away with it have a better than 50% chance of being guilty out of the gate and most of the ones who aren't guilty are innocent for bad reasons like failing to recognize they were in that position, fear, etc. You work from the assumption that the world is filled with flowers, candy, rainbows, and people are basically good at their own expense.
"My prediction: No matter what is reported, fevered minds will claim it fits into their conspiracy."
And dense ones will believe what they are told. Have you ever considered the possibility that most things fit into the conspiracies or clarify them because pretty much everyone is negligent, lazy, and/or shady so if you work from that assumption you are right the vast majority of the time?
Myself and a group of other minors were arrested one night we were hanging out in my storage compartment at an apartment complex with beer. One guy had an unlit joint. Someone heard us laughing in there and called the cops.
The officer knocked and when we didn't answer he barged in, illegally as he had no probable cause. Another officer searched us while the first officer searched the storage room. They found the joint and beer (both through illegal search and seizure). They then took us to the station and questioned all of us without our guardian or attorney present. When we asked for the same they advised we were minors and couldn't assert our rights and said we'd better answer their questions or they would charge us for interferring with their investigation. We were eventually all released that night. Later in the court phase they decided to charge the oldest of us as an adult (something put on the books for extreme cases like minors who commit multiple murder). Everyone else they pinned a single charge on with light penalties. The public defender was common to all of us and arranged it as one big deal based on the information we had told in confidence to her about the details of the night and what belonged to each of us. She asserted we were guilty of the assorted charges and thus couldn't fight them even though we could beat the charges. If my mother backed me up she said she would have the court move to make me a ward of the court with herself as guardian. The older boy who was charged as an adult for six counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor (one each for marijuana and alchohol for each of us) went to the county jail where he was sexually abused. He can't get a decent job and is psychologically traumatized to this day.
Police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, severe ethics violations on the part of my attorney. These are all very serious and severe things, a handful of teenagers closeted up and giggling in a safe room with some beer and reefer not so much.
In another instance I was in the arcade room at a bowling alley with a friend (maybe 13-14). The owner came in and didn't like the look of one of them thinking he was on a list of people who'd been told not to come back and went off to check the name leaving his father behind. He said he was just playing pool and not hurting anyone. The guy snarled and said something about daring to have an attitude with him, slammed him against the wall with an armbar to the throat choking him. Seeing my friend being assaulted I shoved the man off him and said we are leaving and started to walk away. I got to within a few feet of the exit when he tackled me from behind, I went down and cracked my head on the molding where the floor met the wall. He twisted my arm into an arm lock and sent someone to call the police who arrived within a couple minutes.
The cops walked in to see me on the ground angled toward the door, my head bleeding, and the man had me on the ground in the same position except the old man and the son traded places. My "friend" said he hadn't seen anything, denied being assaulted and he said the older owner had gone to check his list then I walked out and he saw me on the floor just like the cops found me. The owners claimed they asked me to leave and I refused. I was arrested for criminal trespassing and the owner was not arrested for anything. Turns out the police have their league games and practice at that bowling alley and the old man (60-70) was a retired cop who plays as part of the league. The moves he used are police training and are designed to over power and hold someone who is stronger/bigger but honestly I was an early teen and the man spends his days handling and throwing bowling balls.
The police report claimed the officer had seen their list and identified his own initials by my name on an earlier entry. It indicated nothing about my "friend" and that I was injured struggling and trying to get away from him. The same public defender, the same refusal to present any defense.
It's unlikely to just be retaliation, either there were others who would have enough reason to suspect what happened to be feared into silence or there was reason to believe this guy knew more than has been leaked so far.
There is someone there is reasonable cause to believe had strong motive and no other promising leads. Not investigating that as your primary lead until or unless something else is uncovered is neglegence. Of course there is little enough to go on that someone with strong political power in DC and who has already proven to have enough power to beat a federal investigation when enough evidence has been disclosed publically to warrant federal charges has little reason to worry about an investigator doing due dillegence and even with enough heat put on the investigation there won't be anything more than a minimal token investigation so they can say they did it.
The woman just had the director of the FBI aquite her of wrongdoing following an investigation in which enough evidence came to light publically to prove her wrongdoing and with a speech in which he outlined wrongdoing before stating the opposite conclusion. She was just proven to be involving in a conspiracy with the DNC both to funnel funds to her campaign and to rig the nomination. At the convention the delegates whose job it was to represent the interests of voters they represent who were proven to have been duped and cast their vote for the other candidate were openly told by every speaker to stfu and fall in line, the message was even being repeated over and over again by the mainstream media to the public. She is even busting out the typical 80's R side f33r the evil Russians argument.
The evil and corrupt dictator we are supposed to fear Trump will be if elected Hillary is already proven to be and she isn't even in office yet, she just already has that much power without the Presidency added to it. I think it is fair to say the vast majority of the intelligent people in this nation don't want either one of them. The usual lesser of two evils argument wears pretty thin when both options are so blatantly evil.
Indeed, unfortunately the numbers still don't work out. Not just the raw number of suicides (even assuming the Clintons are eliminating problems most of that list likely had nothing to do with them), the number of closely connected suicides with extremely unusual and improbable circumstances like shot in the back, in the back of the head, with multiple guns, three times in the chest, etc is far far beyond what is reasonably within probability even with a sample size of thousands of associations.
"So one motive down, dozens of other possible motives remain and professional assassin is not high in statistical probability."
Not high in probability for shootings in general or for shootings of people known by the presumptive next President to be leaking damaging information about them and likely to have more damaging information that may not yet have been leaked?
"If it was a professional hit, I would have expected them to have taken something. Of course maybe they are too clever and that's what they want me to think...."
Or they heard something and chose to bolt. It was DC after all and the Clintons can easily use political pressure to chart the course of the investigation.
"The big problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it only takes one secretly recorded message, or one witness that remains alive, to blow the whole thing wide open. Unless you believe that *everyone* is in on the conspiracy, of course, which makes a great movie plot, but isn't terribly realistic."
That is the old and oft repeated wisdom and yet over and over again massive conspiracies are proven. Remember when the plot of Enemy of the State was just a crazy conspiracy theory that was entertaining to watch? Remember all those nutjobs who actually believed the CIA actually engaged in mind control experiments and had psychic ops divisions? Remember all that crazy talk about discovering cocaine and setting up countries to produce it and then setting up distribution channels among the negros nobody cared about to fund black ops and illegal arms sales? Oh wait, those crazy nutjobs were absolutely right and the people who didn't believe those things were in fact the ignorant saps.
"Were I to believe it a Democrat inspired political murder, I still wouldn't believe that Hillary would know anything about it, or even have approved of it after the fact."
Because you assume some ethics on her part or because of practical reasons? This does put heat and suspicion on her but nothing that can be proved and nothing that can't be dismissed as "crazy" and gotten away with politically. Hillary wouldn't neccessarily need to know, in fact for plausible deniability this falls under the "you don't want to know, I'll take of it" category.
It doesn't make a lot of sense as retaliation unless there are others who could hurt her who need to be subdued by watching her get away with murder. Actually it makes more sense as a way of stopping the leak in the boat. Rich may well have had far more damaging information he hadn't leaked yet or that hasn't been released yet and therefore might not yet have been leaked.
"And it doesn't sound like something the Clintons would do."
It sounds exactly like something the Clintons would do.
"It does sound like something Putin's men would do."
Oh, I get it, you think there is a substantial difference. We do have better propoganda and spin on our side, I'll give you that.
Russian involvement in getting the message is neither here nor there. The "evidence" for it amounts to no more than I could accomplish with $5 hopping on a vpn service with an exit point in Russia. Actually Russian IPs encoded in files suggests it certainly was not the Russians, they are better at what they do than that, Russia has some of the finest hackers in the world.
The whole Russia thing was a well targeted distraction from the Hillary DNC collusion and corruption, without it people would realize Nixon just tried to listen to DNC officials, Hillary engaged in collusion with results beyond anything Nixon could have ever dreamed of accomplishing with what he gained listening in. She was caught with her hands in the cookie jar and is distracting you by saying it was the Russians who unlocked the door so you could walk in and catch her.
Exactly, there is no evidence here to draw solid conclusions on. It's just suspicious, fails the smell test, and the actors involved have a long history of suspicious smell test failing points in their history alongside many serious and proven incidents of wrongdoing they somehow get away with. It doesn't help that the Clintons are in a position to do just this sort of thing and get away with it.
At some point that long trail of proven and suspect actions does reach a critical mass though and it does become reasonable to withdraw the benefit of the doubt, you won't neccessarily be right but you'll have a higher probability of being right than giving the benefit. The corrupt actions of people aren't an ideal roulette spin with each outcome having an equal chance, the historical outcomes have a direct impact on the probability of the next action when all else is equal. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it, or in this case to allow bad actors to repeat it.
"Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term [ballotpedia.org].... But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted."
And yet somehow Bernie Sanders is not wealthy and in the senate no less.
"To be fair, I don't think many people would have said Obamacare was possible 8 years ago."
You say that like it's a good thing. Obamacare has funneled billions of dollars to insurance companies both from individuals and tax funds to require health insurance for people who can't actually afford to use it and the insurance companies have spun it around claiming the new requirements which are making them boatloads of cash mean they have to raise rates for everyone.
My former employer provided 100% company paid health insurance. It was a great idea and a great benefit. When the CEO found out one of our staff was going to the VA for care he was baffled. I explained to him that for most people insurance takes a $50,000 bill and turns it into a $10,000 bill, which is a huge reduction but we don't have $10,000.
Most aren't convicting here, just pointing out it smells funny. Especially given that what was leaked put to bed any doubt as to whether or not Hillary Clinton was engaged in collusion and conspiracy to try to rig the election. Seriously, Nixon just tried to wiretap these people, Clinton had them engaged in active collusion against her competition in a race that was running about 50/50. Her media insiders ignoring the numbers and saying over and over again that it was over and there was no chance. I actually sat and watched an interview on CNN where they told Sanders campaign manager they were going to announce Hillary Clinton as the victor before the vote in California... a state with enough delegates to have turned the outcome and ask if they are going to have a problem with that. Across the country diebold voting systems tallies were extremely disconnected from exit polls and the dnc worked to actively disenfranchise voters and succeeded to the tune of blocking millions of votes. To top it off the DNC actively funneled contributions to the DNC directly into Hillaries coffers.
Bottom line, no further evidence is needed to know she is very very dirty. As for crazy, when Enemy of the State came out that was crazy too. Most of it has turned out to be pretty much on point.
"It would be another six months before information about them would explode into the news. If the President were in the habit of having those dangerous to his presidency put in the ground, why didn't he order these deaths?"
Because he didn't know they were going to be a problem until after they came forward and there were too many eyes on them? Because Hillary was doing the offing and didn't know about them? This isn't exactly iron clad logic here, having missed a couple targets isn't proof you didn't hit the other 50 you shot at. That's a pretty good record actually.
I'm not actually saying I'm a believer of this list (although some grain of truth in it wouldn't suprise me) but I am a firm believer in the corruption of the Clintons. After all, whether this guy is the source of the leak and they off'd him or not. Hillary Clinton got every advantage Nixon dreamed of getting through wiretapping through direct and malicious collusion. Pointing at the Russians, over the top patriotism, etc. Remember the enemy in 1984? They were always at war but they'd flip who was the enemy and who was the ally every couple decades and rewrite history. The D and R sides of the ruling party have done that once already, it looks like they are switching back on us. When people start to see through your bullshit and rally it's time to toss things up in the air so they are so confused they don't know what to do right?
Non-evidence can in some cases be a form of evidence. Just to pick a random example, a location where someone died wiped clean of forensic evidence.
Someone as politically connected and powerful as the Clintons can apply pressure to drop "ridiculous" conspiracy theory investigations. Other than on TV police aren't generally inclined to look beyond the obvious in the first place. Typical investigations do NOT get CSI treatment, the crime scenes are not typically properly contained, especially if the police believe it is an apparent suicide. And of course the Clintons would be using professional killers who know what they are about. The simple fact is that we can't draw conclusions either way with any certainty given the evidence we have, on one hand you can't conclude guilt with no evidence and on the other no evidence is exactly what you'd expect to find if they are guilty.
There is a strong correlation between being on the bad side of the Clintons and death of unnatural causes and it exceeds what is statistically normal but correlation does not equal causation.
As an aside, the content of those leaked emails showed Hillary Clinton engaged in collusion more damaging than anything Nixon ever got caught doing and nobody is denying the content. Oh but hey look a bird... err Russian. The source doesn't matter if the message itself is uncontested. We are supposed to elect the new Nixon out of spite for the Russians allegedly interfering?
"Their claim is correct, he was not a suspect, he resembled a description given of a suspect."
Strawman. He didn't merely resemble the robber, he was pulled over because he resembled the robber. The officers who pulled him over therefore suspected he was an armed robber due to matching description, one who is suspected is a suspect. This is just playing on the difference between an official police suspect (a designation that would come later) and the common use of the term.
Slashdot Mirror
The right has their anti-science wing but so does the left. The entire naturalist and animal rights movement within the Democratic party qualifies as anti-science. This is the wing that pushes for organic and natural solutions, claims vegetarian diets are more healthy, and wants GMO's to require labeling. I exclude those who want GMO labeling so they can boycott for economic reasons and risk to food supply control (Monsanto IS evil) unless they also believe GMO's are somehow harmful because they are GMO's.
There is nothing but pseudo-science and/or outright anti-science behind any of that.
No, it takes lining up four stick and dividing them in half. Count them, put them back together, count them. Then do the same with fingers, stones, etc until you are satisfied.
Faith is belief without evidence. Science however is not arithmetic and unlike arithmetic is not concrete. Science is however the best method we have for determining the most concrete answers possible given the proof available. It does require faith in the scientific method, however that method is explicitly designed to require the least faith possible in every conclusion and to abandon conclusions when they become contrary to evidence.
"More to the point, exactly the opposite."
....
You can't have an opposite without it's own opposite.
"An inflationary force would make distances between regions of spacetime greater, not reduce them."
And the impact on adjacent spacetime regions would be to
" I'm really rooting for a space-dilating inflation gravity; that could potentially resolve all black hole paradoxes by eliminating singularities and disjoint regions of spacetime, explain inflation, and greatly illuminate the nature of the Big Bang."
And warp space, enable a cool ftl drive, and cause ridges on the foreheads of those who work too close to it.
Okay, I'll just sit over here and work from the assumption that all else being equal people who have the means and the motive to do a thing and get away with it have a better than 50% chance of being guilty out of the gate and most of the ones who aren't guilty are innocent for bad reasons like failing to recognize they were in that position, fear, etc. You work from the assumption that the world is filled with flowers, candy, rainbows, and people are basically good at their own expense.
By all means, tell yourself that I'm the idiot.
"My prediction: No matter what is reported, fevered minds will claim it fits into their conspiracy."
And dense ones will believe what they are told. Have you ever considered the possibility that most things fit into the conspiracies or clarify them because pretty much everyone is negligent, lazy, and/or shady so if you work from that assumption you are right the vast majority of the time?
Myself and a group of other minors were arrested one night we were hanging out in my storage compartment at an apartment complex with beer. One guy had an unlit joint. Someone heard us laughing in there and called the cops.
The officer knocked and when we didn't answer he barged in, illegally as he had no probable cause. Another officer searched us while the first officer searched the storage room. They found the joint and beer (both through illegal search and seizure). They then took us to the station and questioned all of us without our guardian or attorney present. When we asked for the same they advised we were minors and couldn't assert our rights and said we'd better answer their questions or they would charge us for interferring with their investigation. We were eventually all released that night. Later in the court phase they decided to charge the oldest of us as an adult (something put on the books for extreme cases like minors who commit multiple murder). Everyone else they pinned a single charge on with light penalties. The public defender was common to all of us and arranged it as one big deal based on the information we had told in confidence to her about the details of the night and what belonged to each of us. She asserted we were guilty of the assorted charges and thus couldn't fight them even though we could beat the charges. If my mother backed me up she said she would have the court move to make me a ward of the court with herself as guardian. The older boy who was charged as an adult for six counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor (one each for marijuana and alchohol for each of us) went to the county jail where he was sexually abused. He can't get a decent job and is psychologically traumatized to this day.
Police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, severe ethics violations on the part of my attorney. These are all very serious and severe things, a handful of teenagers closeted up and giggling in a safe room with some beer and reefer not so much.
In another instance I was in the arcade room at a bowling alley with a friend (maybe 13-14). The owner came in and didn't like the look of one of them thinking he was on a list of people who'd been told not to come back and went off to check the name leaving his father behind. He said he was just playing pool and not hurting anyone. The guy snarled and said something about daring to have an attitude with him, slammed him against the wall with an armbar to the throat choking him. Seeing my friend being assaulted I shoved the man off him and said we are leaving and started to walk away. I got to within a few feet of the exit when he tackled me from behind, I went down and cracked my head on the molding where the floor met the wall. He twisted my arm into an arm lock and sent someone to call the police who arrived within a couple minutes.
The cops walked in to see me on the ground angled toward the door, my head bleeding, and the man had me on the ground in the same position except the old man and the son traded places. My "friend" said he hadn't seen anything, denied being assaulted and he said the older owner had gone to check his list then I walked out and he saw me on the floor just like the cops found me. The owners claimed they asked me to leave and I refused. I was arrested for criminal trespassing and the owner was not arrested for anything. Turns out the police have their league games and practice at that bowling alley and the old man (60-70) was a retired cop who plays as part of the league. The moves he used are police training and are designed to over power and hold someone who is stronger/bigger but honestly I was an early teen and the man spends his days handling and throwing bowling balls.
The police report claimed the officer had seen their list and identified his own initials by my name on an earlier entry. It indicated nothing about my "friend" and that I was injured struggling and trying to get away from him. The same public defender, the same refusal to present any defense.
The deal the
It's unlikely to just be retaliation, either there were others who would have enough reason to suspect what happened to be feared into silence or there was reason to believe this guy knew more than has been leaked so far.
There is someone there is reasonable cause to believe had strong motive and no other promising leads. Not investigating that as your primary lead until or unless something else is uncovered is neglegence. Of course there is little enough to go on that someone with strong political power in DC and who has already proven to have enough power to beat a federal investigation when enough evidence has been disclosed publically to warrant federal charges has little reason to worry about an investigator doing due dillegence and even with enough heat put on the investigation there won't be anything more than a minimal token investigation so they can say they did it.
The woman just had the director of the FBI aquite her of wrongdoing following an investigation in which enough evidence came to light publically to prove her wrongdoing and with a speech in which he outlined wrongdoing before stating the opposite conclusion. She was just proven to be involving in a conspiracy with the DNC both to funnel funds to her campaign and to rig the nomination. At the convention the delegates whose job it was to represent the interests of voters they represent who were proven to have been duped and cast their vote for the other candidate were openly told by every speaker to stfu and fall in line, the message was even being repeated over and over again by the mainstream media to the public. She is even busting out the typical 80's R side f33r the evil Russians argument.
The evil and corrupt dictator we are supposed to fear Trump will be if elected Hillary is already proven to be and she isn't even in office yet, she just already has that much power without the Presidency added to it. I think it is fair to say the vast majority of the intelligent people in this nation don't want either one of them. The usual lesser of two evils argument wears pretty thin when both options are so blatantly evil.
Indeed, unfortunately the numbers still don't work out. Not just the raw number of suicides (even assuming the Clintons are eliminating problems most of that list likely had nothing to do with them), the number of closely connected suicides with extremely unusual and improbable circumstances like shot in the back, in the back of the head, with multiple guns, three times in the chest, etc is far far beyond what is reasonably within probability even with a sample size of thousands of associations.
"So one motive down, dozens of other possible motives remain and professional assassin is not high in statistical probability."
Not high in probability for shootings in general or for shootings of people known by the presumptive next President to be leaking damaging information about them and likely to have more damaging information that may not yet have been leaked?
Or a thumb drive with much more serious evidence on it.
"If it was a professional hit, I would have expected them to have taken something. Of course maybe they are too clever and that's what they want me to think...."
Or they heard something and chose to bolt. It was DC after all and the Clintons can easily use political pressure to chart the course of the investigation.
"The big problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it only takes one secretly recorded message, or one witness that remains alive, to blow the whole thing wide open. Unless you believe that *everyone* is in on the conspiracy, of course, which makes a great movie plot, but isn't terribly realistic."
That is the old and oft repeated wisdom and yet over and over again massive conspiracies are proven. Remember when the plot of Enemy of the State was just a crazy conspiracy theory that was entertaining to watch? Remember all those nutjobs who actually believed the CIA actually engaged in mind control experiments and had psychic ops divisions? Remember all that crazy talk about discovering cocaine and setting up countries to produce it and then setting up distribution channels among the negros nobody cared about to fund black ops and illegal arms sales? Oh wait, those crazy nutjobs were absolutely right and the people who didn't believe those things were in fact the ignorant saps.
"Were I to believe it a Democrat inspired political murder, I still wouldn't believe that Hillary would know anything about it, or even have approved of it after the fact."
Because you assume some ethics on her part or because of practical reasons? This does put heat and suspicion on her but nothing that can be proved and nothing that can't be dismissed as "crazy" and gotten away with politically. Hillary wouldn't neccessarily need to know, in fact for plausible deniability this falls under the "you don't want to know, I'll take of it" category.
It doesn't make a lot of sense as retaliation unless there are others who could hurt her who need to be subdued by watching her get away with murder. Actually it makes more sense as a way of stopping the leak in the boat. Rich may well have had far more damaging information he hadn't leaked yet or that hasn't been released yet and therefore might not yet have been leaked.
"And it doesn't sound like something the Clintons would do."
It sounds exactly like something the Clintons would do.
"It does sound like something Putin's men would do."
Oh, I get it, you think there is a substantial difference. We do have better propoganda and spin on our side, I'll give you that.
Russian involvement in getting the message is neither here nor there. The "evidence" for it amounts to no more than I could accomplish with $5 hopping on a vpn service with an exit point in Russia. Actually Russian IPs encoded in files suggests it certainly was not the Russians, they are better at what they do than that, Russia has some of the finest hackers in the world.
The whole Russia thing was a well targeted distraction from the Hillary DNC collusion and corruption, without it people would realize Nixon just tried to listen to DNC officials, Hillary engaged in collusion with results beyond anything Nixon could have ever dreamed of accomplishing with what he gained listening in. She was caught with her hands in the cookie jar and is distracting you by saying it was the Russians who unlocked the door so you could walk in and catch her.
"Oh fuck straight off. Do you defend a fascist demagogue proto hitler running for POTUS? I'm guessing you do."
That is such a good description of the nominee of both sides of the ruling party (R and D) that I don't even know which you mean.
Exactly, there is no evidence here to draw solid conclusions on. It's just suspicious, fails the smell test, and the actors involved have a long history of suspicious smell test failing points in their history alongside many serious and proven incidents of wrongdoing they somehow get away with. It doesn't help that the Clintons are in a position to do just this sort of thing and get away with it.
At some point that long trail of proven and suspect actions does reach a critical mass though and it does become reasonable to withdraw the benefit of the doubt, you won't neccessarily be right but you'll have a higher probability of being right than giving the benefit. The corrupt actions of people aren't an ideal roulette spin with each outcome having an equal chance, the historical outcomes have a direct impact on the probability of the next action when all else is equal. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it, or in this case to allow bad actors to repeat it.
"Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term [ballotpedia.org]. ... But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted."
And yet somehow Bernie Sanders is not wealthy and in the senate no less.
"To be fair, I don't think many people would have said Obamacare was possible 8 years ago."
You say that like it's a good thing. Obamacare has funneled billions of dollars to insurance companies both from individuals and tax funds to require health insurance for people who can't actually afford to use it and the insurance companies have spun it around claiming the new requirements which are making them boatloads of cash mean they have to raise rates for everyone.
My former employer provided 100% company paid health insurance. It was a great idea and a great benefit. When the CEO found out one of our staff was going to the VA for care he was baffled. I explained to him that for most people insurance takes a $50,000 bill and turns it into a $10,000 bill, which is a huge reduction but we don't have $10,000.
Most aren't convicting here, just pointing out it smells funny. Especially given that what was leaked put to bed any doubt as to whether or not Hillary Clinton was engaged in collusion and conspiracy to try to rig the election. Seriously, Nixon just tried to wiretap these people, Clinton had them engaged in active collusion against her competition in a race that was running about 50/50. Her media insiders ignoring the numbers and saying over and over again that it was over and there was no chance. I actually sat and watched an interview on CNN where they told Sanders campaign manager they were going to announce Hillary Clinton as the victor before the vote in California... a state with enough delegates to have turned the outcome and ask if they are going to have a problem with that. Across the country diebold voting systems tallies were extremely disconnected from exit polls and the dnc worked to actively disenfranchise voters and succeeded to the tune of blocking millions of votes. To top it off the DNC actively funneled contributions to the DNC directly into Hillaries coffers.
Bottom line, no further evidence is needed to know she is very very dirty. As for crazy, when Enemy of the State came out that was crazy too. Most of it has turned out to be pretty much on point.
"It would be another six months before information about them would explode into the news. If the President were in the habit of having those dangerous to his presidency put in the ground, why didn't he order these deaths?"
Because he didn't know they were going to be a problem until after they came forward and there were too many eyes on them? Because Hillary was doing the offing and didn't know about them? This isn't exactly iron clad logic here, having missed a couple targets isn't proof you didn't hit the other 50 you shot at. That's a pretty good record actually.
I'm not actually saying I'm a believer of this list (although some grain of truth in it wouldn't suprise me) but I am a firm believer in the corruption of the Clintons. After all, whether this guy is the source of the leak and they off'd him or not. Hillary Clinton got every advantage Nixon dreamed of getting through wiretapping through direct and malicious collusion. Pointing at the Russians, over the top patriotism, etc. Remember the enemy in 1984? They were always at war but they'd flip who was the enemy and who was the ally every couple decades and rewrite history. The D and R sides of the ruling party have done that once already, it looks like they are switching back on us. When people start to see through your bullshit and rally it's time to toss things up in the air so they are so confused they don't know what to do right?
Non-evidence can in some cases be a form of evidence. Just to pick a random example, a location where someone died wiped clean of forensic evidence.
Someone as politically connected and powerful as the Clintons can apply pressure to drop "ridiculous" conspiracy theory investigations. Other than on TV police aren't generally inclined to look beyond the obvious in the first place. Typical investigations do NOT get CSI treatment, the crime scenes are not typically properly contained, especially if the police believe it is an apparent suicide. And of course the Clintons would be using professional killers who know what they are about. The simple fact is that we can't draw conclusions either way with any certainty given the evidence we have, on one hand you can't conclude guilt with no evidence and on the other no evidence is exactly what you'd expect to find if they are guilty.
There is a strong correlation between being on the bad side of the Clintons and death of unnatural causes and it exceeds what is statistically normal but correlation does not equal causation.
As an aside, the content of those leaked emails showed Hillary Clinton engaged in collusion more damaging than anything Nixon ever got caught doing and nobody is denying the content. Oh but hey look a bird... err Russian. The source doesn't matter if the message itself is uncontested. We are supposed to elect the new Nixon out of spite for the Russians allegedly interfering?
"Their claim is correct, he was not a suspect, he resembled a description given of a suspect."
Strawman. He didn't merely resemble the robber, he was pulled over because he resembled the robber. The officers who pulled him over therefore suspected he was an armed robber due to matching description, one who is suspected is a suspect. This is just playing on the difference between an official police suspect (a designation that would come later) and the common use of the term.