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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Neither actually, I just have other things to do beyond continued checking of old posts for personal requests of me. But here you go.
1. Do I accept that things outside of my direct view can exist? Sure.
2. Do I believe that official stories aren't always the real stories, including official stories from our silly, stupid government? Sure.
3. Do I believe that the government has in the past used false information to push us into war, or expand war? I don't think that can even be in doubt, actually, with the Golf of Tonkin incident(s) being pretty settled history and all the bullshit Henry Kissinger pulled, not to mention what Reagan did just prior to his election.
4. Do I believe that our same stupid government that couldn't properly pull off even these smallish conspiracies could effectively pull off the 9/11 attacks, or conspire to allow them to happen, with ALL the pieces that would have to be involved, with ALL the people that would have to stay silent, with ALL the complicity we'd need from foreign governments to the tune of foisting upon us 2 wars and all this nonsense security? Please, don't make me laugh. No government is that good, nevermind ours. The fact that you have full on proof of earlier conspiracies proves it. The fact that you had an Al Qaeda group perfectly willing to lay claim to the attacks and to claim motivation for the attacks prior to them occurring means there no reason NOT to believe they committed the crimes.
9/11 truthers are a sad breed of people unwilling to believe several things: government ISN'T so powerful as to be able to keep us completely safe at its whim, evil DOES exist in the world, religion is a MASSIVE problem in Earthly affairs, and there isn't a nice little box you can put every tragedy into to explain it. The world is chaos. Get used to it. Stop hiding from it.
Yes, they were, and if Microsoft had anything remotely planned such as the comment described above, they would have made their case instead of putting their collective tails between their collective legs and retreating faster than an army out of Baghdad. Those of us that actually keep up on these things and do some gaming reporting must just ALL be fools and Microsoft is a poor, misunderstood company with the interests of gamers at heart.