It's not a disqualification when there's no real alternative. She's the most qualified candidate ever and the other alternative is a paranoid narcissist who doesn't understand why we can't use our nukes.

There was no real malfeasance here. She's been harangued by republicans and the press for thirty years. Of course she's going to want to have tighter control over unclassified email. She knows people will draw all sorts of crazy inferences and take email out of context to "prove" she's some sort of evil genius. How can anyone blame her for that?

Hell, people are so crazy with hate for her that they use her husband's sexual indiscretions against her. How fucked up is that?

I'm quite happy she's going to be president. I'm happy she has helped the millions of people she's helped over the years and I'm happy that she's still willing to do this very difficult job in the face of the insanity of the opposing party and the press.

I'm really tired of the making of mountains out of molehills.

And while I'm at it, let's talk about "lies". Making a false statement does not make you a liar. People whole live complex lives with a large amount of responsibility forget a lot of extraneous details. The human mind has a strange way of filling in gaps and reorganizing memories and sometimes creating false memories. I have experienced this false memory phenomenon personally. It is real and it happens a lot more than you might think. So when someone says, "My daughter was out jogging due X time frame" and she's wrong it's probably more because it was an otherwise irrelevant detail that got stored with the relevant details. How many times have you had to correct your parents about their recollection of some event? But when this happens to Hillary it's OMG! she's SOOO dishonest. Oh for fuck's sake. Have some perspective. The lies we need to worry about from politicians are not broken campaign promises or minutiae about some other event, but lies are things like cherry picking evidence to make a case for war, or covering up a break in, or covering up selling arms to our enemies. These are relevant and material deceptions.

Also when you know you have a prosecutor interviewing you who is trying his best to corner you into a contradiction, it is a very good idea to not allow questioning without a lawyer. If you are a lawyer and you decide to be interviewed, it is definitely in your best interest to restate questions to be more precise with your answers so your answers can't be twisted into contradictions. It's not a sign of dishonesty, it is a matter of being precise so someone doesn't try to fuck you over with your own words.

When asked if Hillary had lied to him or congress Comey said, "No" .

So when you start in with the Hillary is not trustworthy trope. Ask yourself are you repeating the media mantra from the last thirty years where the press kept saying "People don't really trust her"? Because that is exactly what they did. They pushed this idea(mainly because they were pissed at being iced out in 1993). Are you filtering every stupid little thing through a "she's untrustworthy" filter? Because the more I really look into her record and the things she's done for people quietly, without tooting her own horn, the more impressed I am with her. I really think she's deeply concerned with the country's well being and is busting her ass for us.

I'm no christian but she is and she's very serious about her faith and good works. I just wish we could have a democratic congress to go along with her as president and a democratic senate. The current republican party has lost its mind.

At some point we're going to have to master welding in space. We might as well start learning that skill now.

It's a damn shame they didn't do it with the shuttle external fuel tanks. Those things were huge. How many would we have in use now if that was part of the design?

Cool. An example of an equivocation fallacy in physics. Generally you see the fallacy of equivocation employed by religious people or people denying science.

I qualify expert with an M-16 and I have a pretty good knowledge of firearms as I have been shooting my whole life.

The idea that an AR-15 is just as dangerous as a hunting rifle is stupid. I know I can kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time with an AR-15 than I can with any hunting rifle. The NRA(the gun manufacturers lobby) has successfully brainwashed a generation of people into thinking the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct and that it means you should be able to get any damned firearm you want.

There are many problems with this. One is that this country has changed dramatically over the last ~200 years. Technology has improved and population density has increased. Another problem is that traditionally as the west was being settled one of the ordinances a new town would enact is a no guns in town ordinance. It is a sign of lawlessness to have people running around in town with a gun. Rural settings are obviously different and should be treated differently. But in the cities and towns, guns are stupid and just asking for trouble. Another huge problem is the NRA. I used to be a member but those guys are fucking crazy. They block very sensible legislation and technology like single user gun tech. We can make guns that can only be operated by one or two designated users. This tech is sensible and would prevent many tragedies yet the NRA not only blocked legislation making the tech mandatory, they went further to prevent municipalities from requiring weapons like this for law enforcement. Think about that. The NRA didn't want cops to have guns that couldn't be fired by people who aren't police. Furthermore the NRA has blocked legislation that would make it easy to identify a shooter after the fact. We have forensic capabilities with tasers that will allow law enforcement to identify the person who purchased the taser cartridge, we could easily do the same with firearms, but the NRA won't have it. That's fucking insane.

I could go on for days but think about this. If there was a non lethal and better alternative to guns, would you be OK with getting rid of guns? If you ask someone who is pro gun that question and they can't answer in the affirmative then a couple of things might be at play. They are either too stupid to deal with a hypothetical or they have a deeply rooted religious belief about guns which can't be shaken.

Neither option is good and I don't really see a third. Generally a pro gun person will find all sorts of ways to try to show that the hypothetical doesn't or can't exist in reality, which is proof of the first option as the link above demonstrates or their belief is too deeply rooted.

Oh yes, I forgot the other option. They just like to kill.

So because republicans managed to pokes holes in sensible legislation you're going to blame democrats for something the republicans did to the legislation and go further to say, therefor it's impossible to improve.

Have you ever deployed software that wasn't perfect the first few rounds? Did you just give up on the project as a result? I mean, if it's not perfect you might as well just give up, right?

This reminds me of the arguments and complaints from republicans about the flaws in the ACA, WHICH THEY DEMANDED BE PUT IN THE BILL!. It's like punching your wife in the face and then telling her that black eye makes her ugly.

OK so let me get this straight. You think a democrat will put everyone on the no fly list, killing the airline industry in order to stop the sale of guns.

That's perfectly rational.

Wow.

They aren't doing so in legislative form at present...

So you would rather we sell guns to people on the terrorist watch list because you are afraid of what the democrats might propose in the future. And somehow those future proposals will just magically sail through congress unopposed because this legislation passed?

Interesting.

Do you think paranoid people should own guns?

Because they didn't plan on having a standing army. A very important detail.

You fail to mention a presumption the founders had regard the 2nd amendment which changes things quite a bit. They also presumed that the US would not have a standing army, therefor we would need everyone ready in the militia during a time of war.

But we have a standing army so a militia is not really needed.

Also the founders aren't gods. We need to be civilized and stop with the dick waving, I mean gun toting.

This is more an example of the Streisand effect than secret government proceedings. The democrats decided to protest by having a sit in and the speaker of the house thought, "Fine, I'll just cut the video feed so no one can see it". It was a dick move and now the speaker of the house has made history by presiding over the first sit in in congressional history.

Apparently he also looked into cutting the power and the air conditioning.

This is all because republicans refuse to pass a bill that would stop people on the no fly list from buying guns.

Yes, they are that insane. In fact they are so insane that the NRA(the gun manufacturing lobby group) has called John Lewis(a civil rights leader since the 60's and one of the participants in the sit in) a terrorist.... for having a peaceful demonstration!

Wouldn't it be a simpler task to track sales of guns? The government knows when I buy a car, when I withdraw or deposit a large sum of money and when I vote, shouldn't they also know when I buy a gun?

At some point the cameras will be pixel sized and be part of the screen.

I was wondering if the marijuana businesses could get around this banking issue by overpaying their taxes in cash and then getting a check for the refund. The bank isn't going to refuse to open an account for a business that is depositing government checks is it?

This has the added benefit of making the government the money launderer.

Trump stole the zombie horde. But there aren't enough zombies to win ... this cycle. Americans are getting dumber and dumb people breed more than smart people. We will have our President Camacho someday. Idiocracy is in full swing. Trump, Cruz, Palin and Dubya are solid evidence of that.