Actually, yes, I was forced to learn how to use the source page the very first story I did linking back to this site. I still tend to write the pull quotes out if they aren't too long, though, as this one was....
Re: But "The Economist" is totally biased in favor of moneylenders, mercantilists, and other parasitic grifters, not industrialists, small business, or the public.
.....so you've formulated a response to a post you haven't and cannot see yet. I can't think of a better articulation as to why absolutely nobody should listen to you than you've chosen to author for yourself....
Thanks for your comment. While I would disagree with some of your comment, I did verify that what you're saying about the router being offered for free is correct and I've updated the post to reflect that while still leaving the erroneous content struck out so that everyone can see the edits.
Your question is VERY easily answered: any other candidate of the current crop carries less baggage than Hillary Clinton, from Bernie Sanders to Scott Walker.
Now, if your question is: find a candidate that doesn't have serious political negatives, then no, that cannot be done. But I don't see Bernie Sanders trying to publicly smear sexual assault victims, even if he wrote some weird shit in the 70's, and I don't see Scott Walker acting loose with government secrets even if he is the most divisive political candidate currently up for the ballot.
Some of this is likely because Hillary has had more opportunity with a longer public career to fuck up. But that doesn't mean she didn't fuck up.
Hillary Clinton will NOT be president. I know everyone thinks she will be, which is part of the reason she won't be (voter apathy), but even without that, she's un-electable.
1. She was deeply involved in helping her husband run Arkansas like their own personal piggy bank
2. She was deeply involved in slandering several of her husband's sexual assault accusers
3. She essentially betrayed women by "standing by her man", a cheating man who I still think ought to be brought up on war crimes charges for bombing a Sudanese pharma plant to drive attention away from his admittedly silly Lewinsky trial. Despite is sexual deviancy, despite several accusers of actual sexual assault, despite the lies and the crimes, she stood by him....for political reasons. To all my female comrades out there: THAT'S NOT A REASON TO VOTE FOR A WOMAN FOR PRESIDENT.
4. She herself has been lying about her own use of classified material on her own private servers, circumventing security and records keeping. She's untrustworthy of any public office.
5. While her affiliation with the Clinton Family Foundation while Sec. of State isn't the humungo mega-scandal that idiots like Rush Limbaugh claim it is, it still creates a massive conflict of interests for future office, as money was directly given to her foundation by entities with which she'd have to interact on the world stage. That's an untenable situation.
Hey, dumbass, read the line in the context of the rest of the graf and it should be more clear. The point was that protecting a Nazi's diary that was NOT intended for public release does nothing to promote the creation of other creative works. The point was the diary, not the fact he was a Nazi.