Oh, I totally get that. I'm not saying debating with Trump helps build a skill set to deal with China or Russia or our allies or the vast majority of domestic issues. Overall, I'm in agreement that normally these debates don't really show much in terms of "ability to govern well." I'm saying that debating with Trump *might* exercise some muscles that one uses to deal with the unpredictability of a natural disaster , terrorist act, or North Korea. ;)

:p

I'd love to hear the stats that back up that the inner city "crisis" is due to the fact that we aren't focusing on curbing crime/criminals and the correlation that it is caused by corporations leaving the USA. Do we need to double down on the world leading incarceration rate?

Yep. I'm with ya.

If this is your criteria, then your votes in the mock polls make absolutely no sense. I mean, unless you're just into nepotism.

No jobs equals more poor people. More poor equal more crime. At least, more of the violent crime that we don't like.

The incarceration rate is a product of crime, not a creator of it. It's a double-edged sword. We NEED these communities to be safe and we need the violent criminals (that we've created in these communities removed). But it's not a linear solution. We need to bring our jobs back, we need to give them to OUR current citizens in need, and we need to remove the criminals. If we do those three things, the inner city communities can actually progress. Most corporations would rather move their business to Mexico than to Detroit. That's got to stop.

If Trump were elected and didnt get his way, what would he do? If NATO says no about negotiations is he going to remove us from NATO? If China wants no part of the Middle East or S Korea is he going to start shit with China? Trump thinks he is able to "negotiate" every single problem in the world and it is scary. HRC made a point about diplomacy, agreements that have been in place for years, and what would you do about it Donald. Trump is a loose cannon.

That was pretty funny. I especially like the one from Jerry Springer. "Hillary Clinton belongs in the White House, Domald Trump belongs on my show"

And that's part of his appeal (though I'd argue that it's a relatively small part).

I popped over to PredictIt to see the odds of Trump skipping a debate. The No on "he will attend all three debates" is actually at ~20%, so my idea of trying to get a longshot value play there has already been priced into the market.

Not even 9/11: The Friday Cover: ‘We’re the Only Plane in the Sky’ – The strange, harrowing journey of Air Force One on 9/11, told by the people who were on board. - POLITICO Magazine

I read that piece a couple of weeks ago, and iirc, the decision to authorize planes to be shot down was made pretty quickly (Bush agreed to it during a brief phone conversation, I think). I was specifically thinking of that decision when I included 9/11. A narrow window of time *could* have been a difference-maker there.

Eh? The unemployment rate is at 5% at current. The labor force participation rate is at 63%, yes, but at its highest (in the late 90s) it was at 67%. And the country has been 'greying' quite a bit (labor force participation counts anyone over 16 who isn't incarcerated or in military service):



Sooo... jobs seem pretty ok.

That doesn't mean everything is hunky-dory, of course. Income inequality is a big gulf, but lack of jobs isn't actually a thing.

A lot of people in the media reporting on this don't understand this issue. Stopping and frisking without reasonable suspicion has been unconstitutional for many, many, decades. We didn't need any new cases telling us that.

But when lawyers, law enforcement officers, and courts say "stop and frisk", they're talking about stopping and frisking within the framework of Terry v. Ohio. It's constitutional to stop and frisk someone upon reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot (the stop) and that the suspect may be armed and dangerous (the frisk). It's a very low standard of suspicion. And the tricky thing is, many of the factors which can add up to a finding of reasonable suspicion are things that disproportionately impact minorities - being in a high-crime neighborhood, gang affiliation, known prior criminal record, loitering in urban areas without an apparent purpose, etc. So when agencies in diverse cities like New York get really aggressive with their Terry stops, they're going to disproportionately be dealing with minorities, even assuming no intentional racial bias.

Terry v. Ohio is still the law, it's still constitutional. Cops can stop and frisk in that framework everywhere, even New York. But the NYPD got slapped down by a federal district court because their internal policy that governed their own Terry stops was held to be racially discriminatory.

But police departments can still aggressively use stop and frisk policies within the Terry framework. Depending on the tolerance of their state judges on a case-by-case basis, and then federal district judges when it comes to constitutional challenges to any policies they have. And there's a PR component. If a community wants their officers to lay off a bit on Terry, they should, even if they have a legal power to use it more aggressively.

I have no idea what Trump means though. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he thinks that officers in heavy-crime areas should use Terry more aggressively. A lot of New Yorkers feel that way, some see that police approach as part of the reason for New York's dramatic reduction in crime since the early 90s.

.

Median income also took a big jump: Real Median Household Income in the United States - FRED - St. Louis Fed

I don't usually watch debates, I know enough about these candidates to make my voting decision, but I was interested to see how Clinton looked and sounded health-wise and what tone she was going to use v. Trump. I thought she looked and sounded great. And I really like the tone she went with - she wasn't unnecessarily hostile, but she also didn't seem to give him a lot of deference and respect just for being there, like the Republican candidates mostly did.

I think that the right professor could teach an entire semester on game theory using only the 2016 GOP Primary as his example.

A wrinkle with that statement likely lies in the definition of "community".

Is that defined as "a jurisdiction"? Is New York City really "New York City" ... or is it dozens or hundreds (thousands?) of neighborhoods, all with different oxen to be perceived as gored?

Same question holds true (surprisingly so I suspect for those who've never lived in micro-population areas) a long way down the size scale.

I've had this specific conversation with more than one LEO over the years. Everybody aside from outright criminals themselves wants lower crime in theory. The theory starts to break down when the likelihood that some relative/friend/associate is the bad guy rises.

The most memorable of those conversations was probably with a small-town police chief, a black guy who came from the very streets that he had to try to police decades later. "Everybody is glad to see me ... until I come to arrest their nephew. And around here, everybody is somebody's nephew".

I think his kids (assuming that actually happens) are far more level-headed than their father is.

I have been teetering between Johnson and Trump this whole time. I'm still not sure who I'll cast my vote for, but thus far have felt Trump is the better option of the two because of this criteria. I have concerns what Johnson's cabinet would look like moreso than Trump.

Fact check: Tim Berners-Lee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :p

Tim Berners-Lee....paraphrasing from the link..."created HTTP and was the first to use it over... the internet". I think credit more likely goes to the US/U.K. team that developed TCP/IP (ARPANET) which I was always told was the symbolic beginning of this endeavor.

And do we all know the internet-history significance of this:

I am far more concerned that anyone would look at that crazy, rambling, near-unintelligible mess of a quote and respond by being bothered to fact-check some tiny sliver of teh crazy contained therein.

Fact check: Appears to be true.

Have we seen the birth certificate? Or a DNA test proving he's Donald's son? I'm gonna need to see both before I believe it's true. Why doesn’t he show Baron's birth certificate last night? I want to see his birth certificate, he could actually be a 400 lbs hacker from Russia or China pretending to be Trump's son as a cover. We just don't know. What can we do to get to the bottom of this?

Good point. I got nothing. :)

That's the difference between a Brit reading it and an American. Trump may be a crazy megalomaniac, and the wall might be a terrible idea, but trying to claim a British invention as American is just going too far :lol:

She came out a little feistier than I expected to the point she looked like the bully for the first segment and Trump was actually being more polite initially. If she just saw the direction it was going later and laid off that tact good for her... but if that was a designed strategy to set a tone and get Trump going bravo to her team.

No question who won the debate - those birther and CYBER responses were brutal. But I doubt any minds were changed last night - the moderator will obviously fact check him more, but Holt started to go after Trump harder in the latter half enough that Trump supporters and the anti-Hillary base can focus their energy on that. (He is misogynistic in some ways, but quoting Trump saying Hillary didn't "look" Presidential and asking if that was because of bigotry was the one that stood out to me. On the flip side the Clinton Foundation was something I expected to be brought up & defended.) And anyone ignorant enough to be undecided heading into last night will have forgotten all about it by the time debates 2 & 3 come around. Weirdly Trump's biggest missteps were when being forced to defend his own record. I thought he should have kept hammering the "she's had 30 years to do something" line, and missed the glaring opportunity to bring that cyber security question back to Clinton's email server.

please tell me he didn't say this.

He absolutely did. And it was terrific.

That entire segment is verbatim as far as I can tell.

Somebody help me out here, maybe I'm missing something

Old debate viewership record (Reagan v Carter 80) was about 81 million viewers (80.6)

Last night currently getting 80.9 million viewers (over 12 networks) with PBS still pending, and online viewing not included.

1980 U.S. Population 226,545,000 (rounded off)
Current population estimate 322,762,000

Am I crazy to think that even with a bump for online & such, this isn't really that impressive an audience?

It approached Super Bowl-level numbers. Of course it's impressive especially given where we are as far as TV viewing habits.

A lot more competition for the eyeballs today versus 36 years ago.

Because, no one has ever hired an outsider. Nope. Only experienced people ever get hired for things. This is why college grads cant find jobs. No experience.
But wait. Maybe experience in aspects would be ok? Like , maybe someone who knows something about economics? No? Maybe someone who knows how to negotiate?

i dont know. Maybe the dirtiest politician to ever run is a better choice.

That'd all be great if Trump did actually know something about economics or how to negotiate - well, I guess aside from negotiating his multiple bankruptcies.

And how many right out of college grads do you know that get hired as CEOs?

You need to read more history. Hillary wouldn't crack the top 100.

I'd be fine hiring Trump as an unpaid intern.

A lot more interest in ... the process ... then vs now seems also fair.

On the one hand I'm happy that it appears that there was no shortage of people who recognized the irrelevancy of last night's affair.

On the other hand, well, that's kind of ... depressing.

Not exactly, maybe even simply not really.

Avg last SB was around 112m, with a total audience of 167m

Last night will end up around 82m avg (apples to apples TV audience afaik), and that should end up a long way short of the total audience even when you factor in online.

You could argue that Trump knows how to run a business.

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A FUCKING BUSINESS.

Hmmmm.....now I'm curious: how is "online" viewership defined?

In my office, I have two TVs that do not have cable, but a Roku is attached to one, and a Roku stick to the other. I also have two external monitors attached to my laptop. We do have TWC, but only on the main big TV in the den. We use Rokus on the other three TVs in the house.

So when I watch TV and I'm not in the den (as was the case for the debate....I was at my desk) I might do one of four things:

1. Go to Roku, use the "Watch TWC" app there. That app allows me to watch 100% of the live content that I could watch if the TV were actually connected to cable.
2. Go to video2.timewarnercable.com on my computer and watch TWC through my computer instead of my TV.
3. Use the TV with the Roku stick and do just like in option #1.
4. Use an iPad or iPhone and use Watch TWC.

Am I an "online" viewer, since technically in all four cases I'm streaming, or am I a "TV" viewer, since in all four cases I'm using Time Warner's stuff and not a web site, per se.

Worth noting if it makes a difference: the only place that you can use video2.timewarnercable.com and get all channels is when connected to the home network (and *maybe* other TWC networks..not sure about that). I can't take my laptop to Starbucks and use that link. If I do that, I can only view a few local channels.

It put up numbers right up with the average viewership of Super Bowls from the early to mid 2000s. Instead of watching 22 guys at a time playing to win the championship trophy of the most popular sport in the country, that many people watched two people the majority of the country hates stand on a stage for an hour and a half on a Monday night.

How much larger would that number have to be to be considered "impressive" in your eyes?

If there's one take-home point from the primaries, it's that most of the GOP base doesn't really care that much about trickle-down economics or limited government or family values, so yeah that would be incredibly boring.

I will disagree with this.

No, its not.

But I bet Trump is more willing to bring in cabinet members who are leadrs in the various areas of government. While HRC is more likely to bring in a bunch of yes-men and women.

She isnt winning the presidency to let other people tell her what to do.

Our local Fox station has Trump winning 61-33

It's not the raw number I'm taking a bit of issue with being too overwhelmed by, it's the percentage (i.e. the overall rating).

Reagan/Carter drew over 1/3rd of the country
Last night drew give or take 1/4th.

Picking an "early to mid 200s" SB, 2002 drew a little over 30% of the nation's population in an avg quarter hour (never mind cume, or total audience)

30 someodd years later, with the growth in population, yes the debate should outdraw Reagan/Carter. That it did so by a relatively narrow margin is what leaves me less than impressed. It's a nice sized audience, but it's not some massive "OMG the NUMBERZ" kind of figure either. That's all I was saying.

It was supposedly the most made-for-tv scenario possible ... and it eeked out a record. Can you imagine how bad the numbers would have been for two utterly dry candidates?

lol

When has Trump not hired yes men?

The closest I can think of is when he hired Joan Rivers in the second season of the Celebrity Apprentice.

You are living in a complete fantasy world.

I am sorry that your hatred of HRC is driving you to post such nonsense, but that's exactly what it is.

I am voting for Hillary because I agree closely with her vision for the country. The cabinet is supposed to help her implement her vision, not be a bunch of obstructionists. I would expect there will be some mild disagreements, but if she hires a bunch of people that are going in twelve different directions, then isn't that the sign of a worse leader than one who hires based upon the person's ability to implement her vision?

The answer is "yes".

You are living in a fantasy world for even thinking of voting for HRC.

She is the most corrupt politician that has walked our lands. And this blind loyalty is absolutely terrible.

I guess it comes down to: If you are satisfied with the status quo, vote HRC. If you are looking for something different, vote Trump.

But what I believe is not nonsense to me. Im sorry your blindness doesnt allow you to see the history of this corruption. Its disgusting and scary. What wont she do to get elected?

I think she would do anything that would guarantee an election. And I do mean anything.

I just wonder how much deference to her Cabinet selections a putative President Clinton can expect from the Senate. The Democrats won't have the filibuster-proof majority they had when President Obama took office, and if the vulnerable GOP incumbents manage to win in spite of Trump, she might face an actively obstructionist Senate instead of a passively obstructionist Senate.

I'm not sure we can make any assertions right now about what sort of Cabinet she'd be able to assemble. If you think the Republican Party is going to just drop the last 20 years' worth of Clinton hatred just because she wins an election, I have some ocean front property in Denver to sell you.

I would love to see cabinet choices. I think that would really solidify the candidates vision for the future.

Show your work.


As opposed to marching to the same rhythm the Republican Party has been drumming against the Clintons since 1992? Because Clinton?

Look: if the Republicans had found ANYTHING more than THIS LOOKS SUSPICIOUS FEAR AND CORRUPTION WHAARGARBL her husband would have been removed from office following his impeachment, and there would have been some kind of post-office prosecution against one or both during the Bush years to forestall even the possibility of a Madame President.

They've had 20+ years and all they've come up with is special prosecutions that go nowhere, insinuation and slogans on a t-shirt.

Blind loyalty from whom, now?

I'd figure most would get only token resistance, as they'll be chosen largely from her various cronies. Meaning they won't be perceived as being all that effective, not worth using a lot of effort over.

More resistance would likely be used for the worst 1-2 of the lot, or maybe one she was most invested in.

You see, Im not a sheep in the GOP. Im voting Johnson.

And HRC is teflon. Absolutely nothing sticks. Doesnt mean its not there. It means she is just that good.

I trust her about as far as I could throw her. And the Democrats being so loyal and blind to these things is scary.

Again, no one found anything because she is that good or has things on members of the House and Senate (This is probably the truth), they dont touch her. just throw things in the wind and act like they are doing stuff.

Good enough to not leave anything she can actually be hooked for but not good enough to prevent 20 years worth of RAWR RAWR CLINTON BAD dribbles?


"Go ahead and tarnish my political reputation with talk radio screeds and campaign trail insinuation, and I won't do anything with this blackmail material I've got, but if you ever actually move against me, I release everything"? That's what you're going with? That whatever blackmail she's got isn't enough to keep them from spending taxpayer dollars on investigations that never bear fruit, but it IS enough to keep them from actually moving on her?

Right.

No, seriously. Show your work. You don't get to declare her the most corrupt politician ever and then say "well she's Teflon nothing sticks."

That's bullshit. If you're going to make a statement like that, show your work. If you can't, go crawl back under your temporarily embarrassed Republican - I mean Libertarian - rock and leave the political discourse to the adults.

I'm sorry, tarcone, but your beliefs are insane.

Coming from a Republican this is rich. GW Bush was one of the most corrupt stealing having stolen an election and sacrificing many vets lives for his fucking oil money.

Up your dosage. Or have them change your meds.

I mean, clearly they aren't working since you forgot to include the obligatory Hitler reference.

He did a month or two ago...

Jesus is love.

I'm not a blind homer for Clinton. I've gone on record on here saying I'd much rather have had Biden run. I voted against her in 2008, and not even for Obama.

Yes, she has flaws. Big ones.

But these lies you are telling yourself that you are some kind of free thinker because you are voting Libertarian are just that: lies. Because there is no bigger baa baa sheep moment than this hatred of Clinton that had been perpetuated for nearly a quarter of a century.

Shit, they built a whole god damn news network around it! What would they have had to talk about for fifteen years if not to just continue to drag her through the mud that whole time. As already said, the fact that she hasn't been prosecuted on SOMETHING means that she is the best criminal mastermind of all fucking time... Or maybe, just MAYBE there isn't anything prosecutable there. Maybe she's morally and ethically lax at times... But criminal? Constantly? The proof beyond torturously circumstantial just isn't there.

Haha

Same here HRC would not be my first choice either but better than the alternatives and that includes you Gary Johnson.

First, in my head i hear Andy Dufresne when I read that...

I think you might be representing the great divide we have here. Clearly, for you, the way things are right now is not all right.

I'm not sure if it's literal pain like decrease in wages, savings, retirement, health care, etc. Or, if it's existential, like fear of being shot, loss of cultural identity, loss of your version of American faith, etc.

I do agree the left has done a miserable job of being empathetic towards groups who feel they have been left behind and feel like society is getting away from them.

i also wonder if the passion both sides show is taken seriously. Can someone who has health, family, and faith be truly violently angry at how the other side has destroyed their way of life?

Status quo isn't that bad. Economy is growing, country is safe, don't pay a lot in taxes. Sure there are things I'd like to see change but the government isn't dragging me down in any way. I'd rather stick to the status quo than have someone like Trump who knows next to nothing about domestic and foreign policy take charge.

If the status quo sucks for you, isn't it up to you to change it? Instead of relying on the government to fix your problems? Isn't that closer to the conservative way of thinking?

The Clinton hatred is fascinating to me. I'm not a fan per say, but I think she is clearly the best option we have in November.

The "trust me, she's corrupt and she's just really really really good at not getting caught" crowd is mindboggling.

I'm very fiscally conservative, but as a brown man, there is zero chance I'm voting for *this* Republican candidate. I would genuinely fear for myself and my family.

For the first time in their 120 year history, the Arizona Republic will not endorse the Republican candidate for POTUS.

Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead

(word of warning, they embedded an autoplay video)

I'm not a huge fan of Clinton, she's a political chameleon who changes positions a lot. But I think a segment of the diehard hatred toward her has to do with her being a woman. A huge chunk of the pro-life movement isn't anti-abortion, it's anti-woman. Just carries on to other areas of politics.

And yet she lost in 2008. Why did she let that happen?

Because she ran into the Chicago Political Machine.

I dont trust HRC. I didnt mind Bill. He was a good dude. Rode a healthy economy and did some good things.
But this women is just a nasty person. Just nasty.

And, honestly, I dont want a 6-3 Supreme Court. 5-4 is cool. I dont want 6-3 either way. And I dont trust who HRC would put in there. She would put a monkey in there if it got her personal gain.

I guess I have seen too much about her past and how she just lies and lies. Not saying anyone else doesnt lie. But HRC is just about the best liar I have ever seen. And its scary.

How incredible that I was alive to see the most corrupt politician ever get beaten by an even more corrupt politician. What are the odds?

One is a person. The other is an institution. But you get a pass for the inability to tell the difference. Being a sheep keeps you blind.

The Chicago political machine had little to do with Obama's campaign. It's odd that people connect him so heavily to Chicago politics when he had such a small role in it. Never held a position in the city or county. Axelrod is his main connection to Chicago and he had moved on to races outside Chicago by the time Obama ran.

I mean Chicago is an incredibly corrupt city from a political standpoint. The Democratic Party holds enormous power. But Obama was never part of that and I always find it funny when people think he was.

"Dem damn Clinton's stole my last loaf of bread"

This is all pretty funny, because pretty much every Hillary supporter in this thread has conditioned that support in one way or another. I know I've definitely said several times that Hillary isn't my ideal candidate. So we're not blind sheep, but just because Hillary has flaws doesn't make Trump a better option. I don't care whether what he says comes from an outsider or an insider, it represents the exact opposite of the values I care about the most.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've said. Bill is the ULTIMATE liar. He didn't get the "Slick Willy" nickname for nothing. He may be the most skilled liar in Presidential history.

I don't think I want to president that's not at least a little slick. Obama was probably too idealistic and naive and could have been a little more Clinton-esque. Bush was too, in a different way. I think Bush was also idealistic and sincere (I'm sure people would disagree on that), and that caused some different problems for him.

It amuses me how a large segment of the Libertarian base uses words like "sheep" or "sheeple", yet they themselves are no different - merely following a different party line. In their pretended enlightenment, they fail to see that they're largely unaware - perhaps even moreso than those they claim are, due to their own hubris.

Oh, the other fun bit? If 5-4 either way is REALLY what you want and not just a justification for why a President Clinton would be Just The Worst, then I have some bad news for you: you aren't *getting* 5-4 unless Clinton gets elected. Right now, what you've got is a 4-4 split. Kennedy is kind of swingy, but he leans conservative. So call it 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, 1 moderate at worst. The only way Hillary Clinton is getting anything but a moderate on the court to replace Antonin Scalia is if the Democrats win the Senate back and Schumer invokes the nuclear option for SCOTUS (previously, the filibuster was left in place for SCOTUS nominees and removed for lower federal court vacancies).

The same scenario holds true for Donald Trump - if he wins, Republicans probably retain the Senate, in which case he's not getting a True Conservative (tm) - and if you think he's a conservative, you're fooling yourself - unless Republicans dispense with the SCOTUS filibuster.

But let's say that's exactly what happens - no matter who gets elected, the nuclear option is invoked to get their preferred ideologue confirmed to the Scalia seat. Come January, you're looking at 5-4 either way, which is what you say you want.

But Ginsburg is going to be 84 soon, Breyer will be 80 in a couple of years, and Thomas will be 70. Absent unexpected death or retirement by the other five justices, those are the vacancies likely to occur in the next 4-8 years. Under Trump, that 5-4 conservative lean would - if you trust him to nominate conservative jurists - become a 7-2 split.

Under Clinton, it might start as a 5-4 tilt towards the liberal side of the court once the Scalia seat is filled, but just as Republicans are playing defense on the Senate map now, Democrats will have to do the same in 2018. Just to preserve a 5-4 split, Clinton would need Breyer and Ginsburg to retire prior to the midterms to allow Democrats to confirm their replacements. The nuclear option only helps them if they retain control of the chamber, which they almost certainly wouldn't. That means two years of either nonstop votes to deny confirmation to whomever Clinton nominates, or a surrender to the political realities in the Senate and a nomination of moderates to slight conservatives to fill those vacancies.

You REALLY want a 5-4 split on the Court? Vote Clinton. She's going to be hard-pressed to keep the Court that evenly divided. A vote for Trump (or a vote for Clinton's defeat, if you prefer) is almost certainly a vote for a shot at a 7-2 conservative majority.

But, hey, don't let me distract you from your Clinton hatred. Keep fucking that chicken.

You're right. This race is showing sexism plain and simple. Yes, I'm a woman. And yes, I am excited about Hillary. Not just because she's a woman either. Among other things, she's smart, experienced and cares about the issues I value.

But if she were a man, a lot of people wouldn't have as big of an issue with her. Just like when someone mentioned they like Bill more. Sexism.

Wow. Not once have I mentioned sex. I could care less if she is a woman or an alien. In fact, I was excited when Sarah Palin was put on a ticket a few years ago. But, wait, she isnt a Dem. So its name calling and put downs. Typical liberal bullshit. You dont think like us so your [insert word]-ist.

"HRC is the bitch that your buddies take turns banging. Until one of them starts dating her. But then he ends up with slashed tires, because of a perceived slight."

That goes beyond sexist, it's downright misogynist.

If you don't see how these quotes suggest that you have issues with powerful women...

I wouldn't use the term sheep for any Clinton supporters (or even Sanders in the primaries). I also wouldn't use it to describe Cruz/Kasich/Bush/Paul etc supporters in the primaries. Donald Trump has absolutely zero concrete ideas on what he will do as president. Anyone planning on voting for Donald Trump is voting only for the "R" and (for the most part) in misogynistic fear of a powerful woman and is without question a sheep.

That's certainly not true. Here's a sampling of other reasons people would vote for Trump:

- A way to register an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the current political powers (both R and D). The election process is so long that it is understandable to forget this, but he still is an outsider, and a symbol of that.
- A belief that who is president isn't as important and who the president surrounds himself/herself with
- A mistrust of Clinton, genuinely aside from gender issues
- A simple desire to watch the world burn

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren against Trump without hesitation despite disagreeing with her political positions significantly. I'll still do so for Clinton, if the race is close enough that I find it necessary, but there's something about HRC that I find unlikable. I can't truly place a finger on it. It may simply be the fatigue of having her in the spotlight for so long, but I think it's just something about her personality that has always seemed fake and untrustworthy. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not in the minority on that.

I do know it's not sexism. The country I would most like to move to is Germany and Merkel has been excellent as far as I'm concerned.

I hear about how Hillary Clinton has a fake an untrustworthy personality... why does Bill Clinton always get a pass? It's like people acknowledge that Bill is untrustworthy and at times not really genuine, but they give him a complete pass. Even when he was president, the right liked to go after Hillary as some sort of power behind the throne.

Have you forgotten about Ken Starr? The impeachment?

Did you actually live through 92-00? Bill was hounded incessantly by every right leaning news outlet and several of them began/grew in large part because of the crap they stirred against him. I honestly can't think of anyone who gives Bill Clinton a pass.

If things seem to have softened against him, I'd wager it's because he's no longer consistently in the spotlight while Hillary has remained there.

Except for that time you called HRC a bitch...

And it's you're.

(You're welcome, cuervo.)

And did you see how it never really affected his poll numbers or approval ratings? He even got higher in the polls after the impeachment! Slick Willy was almost used in a knowing smiling nod. He was even applauded for outflanking the Republicans.

And you see it now, where folks like tarcone are like, will Bill lied, but it was NOTHING like Hillary.

And FWIW, Ken Starr's appointment began to investigate Whitewater, which was considered more of a Hillary scandal than a Bill scandal.

But we have to incentivize work. Ive been trying to hire 5 basically unskilled positions for 3 months, for a very competitive wage. ($22/hr fwiw) in Greenville and Columbia South Carolina. Through the roughly 200 applicants. Maybe 30 have shown up on time for an interview. We've extended 5 offers. 2 failed drug screens. 2 came back with outstanding warrants and 1 accepted the offer but quit the first day because it was too hot.

I am not sure we have a job problem, at least not in my area, there are jobs everywhere and we cant find a person to take them.

I would say most of us on this board are around the same age. So whenever somebody says it really got worse during Clinton's years my guess is that is just when most of us were at an age started to take an interest in politics. I can't imagine liberals were throwing a ticker tape parade for Reagan or Nixon and Republicans were that fond of Carter or Kennedy.

Dola

A few.
I mean immediately coming to mind are: Zuckerber, David Rusenko, Aaron Levie, and Jack Abraham ...though to be fair they are all in the IT space

out of curiosity, what's the protocol on those situations. is law enforcement automatically notified? would you be considered aiding a criminal if you didn't notify the authorities?