Swimming95

Yes because there is no proof of any of it happening externally.individuals Internally preferring is not the same as changing the result of tipping the scale of any of the primaries. If you actually read the emails, there is nothing there. Also lol at the haha goodman article. The reasons that sanders had no chance had nothing to do with how the DNC treated him.

I will ignore some of the other misinformation for a moment to point out one thing: Unless one is talking about getting more votes as rigging, it is not a "fact" that the DNC rigged the primaries against sanders. It won't stop people from thinking there is though which is sad. It seems as though some people care more about feelings than facts.

At least to give context for why I think the LGBT record can be a liability. I need to double check the background of most third-party / undecideds but it seems like some of the targeted demographics are majority in favor. Some of the breakdowns don't break down center left / center right but I also don't know the proportions: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/08/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

I definitely agree with most of that. At least what I'll say is that in past elections, I may have disagreed with the other parties but it seemed like for the most part they were within the realm of reason. My problem is that in this election, you have a candidate who is running on hatred, racism, sexism, anti-lgbtq, anti-muslim, anti-mexican, general xenophobia, etc. If there is a majority in the senate, a lot of those measures would come to pass which would be devastating for those communities for almost decades in the form of the supreme court. This is also ignoring how much damage a president can have with building trust of other nations. At the end of the day, one of the two major party candidates will be elected. How I view it, I would really prefer that hatred not being elected and in that vein probably become slightly more dismissive than I would normally be in the off years. In addition, I'm mostly trying to downplay them in opposition to other people (not you) blowing the charges out of proportion. For the most part, the democratic party moves to the right whenever they lose big and move to the left when they win. That was how Bill Clinton got elected after years of other progressive candidates. I'm nervous that if the dems lose this year, they move back to the right after one of the most progressive platforms in a while. I'm happy to continue this conversation over skype or PM. ------ For the VP debate, I think there is another way that Kaine can win over Pence. Pence has been one of the most anti-lgbt govenors and can be really hammered on his records. Kaine might not have the most progressive views but in comparison the difference is really stark. Bringing up his record as governor can really hurt Pence.

Those were just the first articles I remembered off the top of my head. It sounded like you were originally blaming Clinton for Benghazi which I'm glad to see is not the case. We definitely differ in opinions on how much negligence there was. For me, there was a ton of good that came out of her tenure in the state department that more than outweighs the little bit of negligence I would pin on her. If you look at the actual facts about the case, there seems to be little to no negligence. I am 100% acknolweging your weight to it and mostly saying that I disagree. For the emails, at least how it sounds to me, it's seeming like there is still some misinformation about that scandal. It had nothing to do with the DoJ''s partiality and only with the facts surrounding the case. I also didn't read the Colin Powell part as blaming him but instead as a systemic issue in the state department that Powell initially denied yet was proven to be true. There was some witch hunting by several left wingers which was very regrettable. I would much sooner argue that these cases are only being scrutinized because she's a Clinton. Also I do realize I misread your sentence and thought the part about socially liberal and fiscally conservative was a modifier on libertarian not the candidates. Johnson definitely does hold some nicely liberal views yet fails for me in places related to science. That and in practice, many of johnson's more liberal efforts actually have the opposite effect. It has been proven time and time again that these socially liberal views cannot be left to the states and by doing so, most progress would be undone. Johnson is a "threat", in my opinion, only in the sense that he could act as Nader did in 2000. There is a lot of misunderstanding of his positions and a lot of unneeded frustration about the two candidates caused by not actually looking into the issues. I am not accusing you of this and more wanted to vent that bit of frustration. I fully recognize that we are viewing these things differently and that is fine to have our own opinions on them. My problem is with some misinformation that people use to form those opinions. It wasn't meant to strictly be an attack on you and more how common that misinformation spreads.

I said that libertarianism as a whole is different than being social liberal and fiscally conservative. It is a lot more complex than that. Not that Johnson's specific stances are or aren't. A lot of the social liberal views are consequences of a different views on the roles of government. Honestly, I would find the looks like a Mexican or Cuban thing to be equally as problematic. It's also true that Trump continued the birther thing long after a birth certificate was given. http://www.vox.com/2016/9/16/12938066/donald-trump-obama-birth-certificate-birther I'm sorry that you don't understand how birtherism is racist. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're bringing up whitewater. Do you also blame them for Vince Foster's death? http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8397309/hillary-clinton-whitewater For 11 hours Clinton testified on Benghazi. Considering it was an admitted witch hunt, I'm shocked that they couldn't find any evidence of criminal wrong doing. While yes it was a tragedy, I don't think its accurate to blame soley Clinton for the attacks. There were a lot of other factors into them and it wasn't only due to the US involvement. I understand it being a dent on Clinton's foreign record and that I won't dispute. To say it was strictly her fault would be to go too far. It did transform into an absolutely partisan witch hunt. Especially when you compare it to the amount of attacks under the Bush administration. For emails, you should actually look into the articles of classified information. Many of them did not originate with her server or were not properly marked. Anyone who actually looked at the case could tell that the threshold for indictment was insanely high and that there was no chance of it. It was much more a problem with the way the State Department had been organized even before Clinton's time. Even Comey in a memo wrote " At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasnt a prosecutable case." If you have new evidence somehow, please call up the FBI. Again, this is a different than calling it a mistake... which it was and no one is disputing. I have no problems with you not liking her due to those things but let's at least correct the record and get the facts straight here. My problem is escalating those mistakes to breaking the law. At a certain point, its not really worth arguing this since I don't think I'll be able to change your mind.

Libertarianism is NOT socially liberal. That is a huge misunderstanding of their social position. Not agreeing with Clinton on fiscal record is definitely a valid criticism though. Also, birtherism is and will always be a racist concept. It is completely false that the Clinton campaign started it not that would stop Trump from making things up. So glad he really "solved" that one. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/ Lastly, there has been proven no wrong doing with Benghazi and the email story is completely blown out of proportion. The amount of false information floating around about both of them is absolutely staggering and I would encourage you to take another look at all of the facts surrounding those cases. "For suspected criminal doing". It's amazing how being found innocent from many of those accusations can somehow be damning.

Her record is actually pretty good in most cases... I find its much more that people just don't look at it and are swept into the hysteria. Combined with how much Trump stupidity is on the airwaves, her policy isn't getting covered well.

I definitely agree with that Clinton won... I think Trump will never be able to pull off the first point. He simply doesn't have any policy. It's a little hard to be wonky as its been known to come off as smug, boring, robotic, etc. She has a really tough problem with the double standard. It's also hard for Trump to be relaxed when its so easy to needle him. Lastly, since Trump seems to constantly try to debate reality, its a little hard to not get sucked into "he-said-she-said". It's pretty clear at points that Trump is living in his own reality. It was also disappointing to have Trump continuously double and triple down on his racist, sexist, generally bigoted rhetoric.

More or less done, just PM me whenever a pokemon is in the wrong tier and I will take care of it. Its really weird merging showdowns and our sets so I might have missed something

It's a very small audience that is not allowed to make noise and will probably get thrown out if they do. And I really hope the candidates get fact checked on some level. Trump's bs should absolutely get called out. He has been ignorant this whole campaign and hopefully the media stops treating him with kid gloves.

Considering how absolutely stupid Trump has been whenever there has been no teleprompter, combined with an absolute lack of knowledge and ability to have clear policy, I do not see how he can do well in this debate. Also, do not forget there is no loud audience in the general election debates so Trump can't play the crowd and there is a good chance his attempts fall flat without applause behind them. It also comes down to the moderator. I really hope after what happened with Matt Lauer, the moderators this time do a better job. That involves following up with questions and hold Trump to facts. From the articles after that debacle, I think the moderators took notice.

"genuine" lol. I also think you are being very generalistic and simplistic with those descriptions of how the parties approach race/gender/minority issues. At least to me, I feel that there is a discussion that needs to be had in general. Its a lot about taking a step back sometimes and thinking about how a person is made up of a lot of experiences. Some of those are out of choice and some are out of their control. By appreciating those differences and similarities, it can become a lot easier to treat everyone with the level of respect that they deserve. It is not, and should not, be about taking away someone's right to complain. Everyone has their own set of hardships. The idea about it is to acknowledge that fact.

I wouldn't mind some of the pokemon cards... I'm mostly interested in the promos and if you have any of the following: squirtle line, cyndaquil line, pikachu line, charmander line, totodile line, larvitar line or lugia? Those are at least the gen 1-2 pokemon I like If you don't want to split the pokemon cards if you don't want

Agreed, sorry about that part too. I'm sure from your point of view I look as though I'm missing a lot of the facts. From my point of view it was vice versa. It often times feels like nuance is lost and things are sensationalized out of proportion which is why I snapped at that. As far as Iraq vote goes, my personal thoughts are this. I will say that I try to view it in the context of the time and I don't think anyone wouldn't call it a mistake to have voted for the war. She has also apologized for that mistake. I think in the aftermath, her constiuants were angry. There was a huge call to get some kind of action and there was pressure on her to vote in favor. I also think that the senate was widely misled about the reasons for the war and the surrounding process. I at least like this article on her decision: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

Meant non sensible as a lot of that conversation is being clouded by conspiracy theory not necessarily what happened. I have no interest in getting into a debate about Benghazi and the emails here as it's pretty clear that we see them differently.. And I didn't mean to say that all of the hate is driven by conspiracy theory. Sorry if it came out like that. It's important to have a healthy conversation about all of the issues. Some of the conversations seem slightly less than healthy by all sides. I'm also sorry if it sounded like I thought you were defending trump. My intention was more to explain why I was defending and supporting Clinton. Again, it is pretty clear we disagree on how to view these things and I don't want to escalate it any further. I will gladly clarify or explain my views further.

You can look up their comparative voting records in congress. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with moving more leftward. The political climate of today is much different than that of a decade ago. There is no sense wasting all of your political capital on something that won't get passed. Progressive Pragmatism allows you to continuously push as left as is possible and actually make progress. On some issues she is more center than I would like but most of her social policy platform is nicely where I would want. You can ascribe whatever intent you want behind it. I frankly don't care as long as she pushed for those values which she seems to be doing. Purity tests are a pretty good way of alienating most people. Also not sure if you are being sarcastic on the Clinton foundation. I brought up it doing good mostly as it has been a nonsense talking point recently. And also to be fair, the extent of being ill that a lot of people like to accuse her of is also grossly overstated to the point of bordering on conspiracy theory. It's a little bit harder to say that Trump is a humanitarian. Considering he went down to Louisiana to pose with playdoh after being told by the governor to stay away to not drain security resources. That and there also seems to be evidence he lied about giving to charities. Though at the moment, that seems to be slightly more conspiracy than I would like and will stay away from preaching that as a fact. My goal in listing those accomplishments was more to say what I liked about her and to also give some proof to her being a lot more leftward and not necessarily as much of a hawk as people like to claim. It was a lot less about what you said specifically. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/ http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_572cca08e4b0bc9cb0469098 http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/12/hillary-clinton-more-liberal-than-obama-as-senator/ Lastly, it is pretty clear that we disagree about this. I don't think we are going to be able to convince the other on our views. I am fine if we interpret these things differently and don't really want to escalate it further. I'm sorry if I came off as hostile in my views.

Thanks for the link Jericho, definitely helps present some of the differences between liberal and libertarian. As I said, it's much more throwing away if you have a preference between either of the two candidates who will win. Considering trump has absolutely bigoted rhetoric and policies, it's hard to say that I have no preference. Supreme Court does mean a lot here. i may not personally be affected but I know a lot of women, Muslims, Mexicans, LGTBQ, African Americans or other minorities who would absolutely be affected more negatively by a trump presidency. I also have no interest in the Green Party. They are absolutely anti-science and it's really frustrating. I'd much sooner take pragmatic progressivism that has a chance of being passed than completely tuning out everyone else. Also, at least with the Democratic Party, it has historically gone more center after losses and not farther left. Most people are not that far left wing. Clinton is absolutely more liberal than Obama is. Also, unfavorability takes in the whole country and not within party. There has been increased polarization and within the parties the candidates are fairly popular. I am absolutely fine if you have a difference of policy. I understand and respect that. What gets me annoyed is a lack of research into the candidates or if you take a lets burn it down approach. I feel like that's missing a lot of the conversation. And no offense chase, You are definitely missing a lot of what's been going on. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing with the Clinton foundation and no evidence that any of the Wall Street speeches affecting her votes. As a New Yorker during the time of 9/11 there is a lot more to the Iraq vote that you are missing from when she was my senator. For foreign policy, read about her work with Asia and the Russia reset. She has also been a huge advocate for women's rights and certainly also has come around greatly on LGTBQ rights. She had been instrumental in getting 9/11 first responders the help they needed. She has aggressively worked for climate change regulation. You may disagree with how she goes about that but it's certainly better than calling it a Chinese hoax. She takes in the nuance of the cost of living in her original minimum wage stance but has incorporated the $15. I'm sure I left things out but here is a link on more http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/ Also I'm on mobile at the moment so can't write a better reply. Also happy to take the conversation offline.

Fine, it doesn't mean nothing. It means you are actively hurting you're second choice out of the three (three being third party and the other two main parties). 2000 was a pretty good example of that. If you view the two main party candidates as being the same and thus have no preference of the other two, then you should probably actually take a look at their policies.

Yeah no... if you are voting third party you are absolutely throwing your vote away. Whether you like it or not, either a democrat or a republican is going to win. That's not necessarily a bad thing. For the most part, when a policy viewpoint gets popular, it will get incorporated into the party platform. There have been tremendous strides in how far the democrats have come this time around. Personally for me, I am absolutely for progressive policies. Unless you completely ignore Clinton's history and nuance, it is absolutely one of leftward thinking and movement, especially compared with the other nominees. Its also not completely accurate to call the libertarian party platform a socially liberal one. There are overlaps but its also missing a lot of the point of the libertarian party. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/25/1552491/-Is-voting-third-party-throwing-your-vote-away-Spoiler-yes-and-here-s-why Good Dan Savage rant (has some fun language and is mostly about green party):

Sorry about the hax http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/reborn-uu-66010

I won, gg! http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/reborn-ou-63378

I won http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/reborn-ru-60589

I ended up winning after needing to restart due to not knowing mega stone changed the tier >.> http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/reborn-ou-56794

Thanks everyone!