What's broken is, as Glenn Reynolds says, the old media, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

Start with the assumption that any political coverage will reflect that bias, including the polls, and you start to see what libertarians, and republicans are up against.

It doesn't take a Weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing.

Also when you start to understand that your views on Donald Trump are almost wholly a creation of that democratic run media, you will start to understand how valuable control of the press has been to the Democratic Party.

Donald Trump is the guy who opened his golf club to Jews and blacks in the 90's and his daughter is married to the decendent of Holocaust survivors.

On the other hand, Hillary is the woman who has been reported to have a vicious temper, be a problem drinker, and lamp thrower and husband hitter, during her last tenancy in the White House.

Think she has reformed, and is no longer a vicious alcoholic bitch, in addition to being a serial liar and felon unworthy of a security clearance?

Clinton broke the law and compromised national security. She set up her own server to avoid the Freedom of Information act. She most likely mixed did this to hide the corruption between the State Department and her sham charity/election slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation. The sad part is there is not a single Democrat that gives a shit. Her party could dump her at any time but no one in the Democratic party gives a shit about this corrupt monstrosity that is about to become President.

How to fix it? I believe that there are two ways, one with more risk and one with somewhat less. I'll mention them below. The thing is: the propaganda machine has worked all too well. Mainstream media sites, you are flooded with pro-Hillary and anti-Trump articles, which in turn serve to influence far too many people who *want* to believe that America is still a functioning country.

So, two ways.

- The most risky: a popular uprising against the political elite. Decorate the lamp posts with strange fruit. The violence is almost certain to spiral out of control. The problem is: if nothing changes, this will happen, sooner or later.

- The least risky: secession. Britain has shown the way with the Brexit. Individual states, or small groups of states need to leave, until the political elite is left ruling exactly nothing. The chances of a strong majority actually having the guts to do this, even here in Texas? Unfortunately small.

And thanks, Libertarians, you idiots. Your presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, whom I've met at a Reason event, is the embodiment of the old joke, "When he walked into a room, it's as if two people just left."

Well, they could have nominated the guy who stripped to his underwear and danced on the stage. Other than Johnson, there were no adults in the room. When your party is full of juveniles and crackpots, you've pretty much got to go with the only guy you've got who isn't batshit crazy and has been successful as either a businessman or a governor. And Johnson's been both.

Neither Johnson nor Weld are noted for being media-charismatic, but both were reelected to their respective governorships, Weld in a state actively hostile to his party and by the widest margin ever in that state.

I don't like Trump that much, but these pearl-clutching sissies getting the vapors over him - I like them even less.

How can it possibly be that Watergate was the biggest scandal ever and this handing classified material to Russian hackers on a silver platter is nothing?

And we can't fight it because the only way to fight it is to shoot people, which we won't do.

How to fix it? That's a tall order, as this level of corruption has been around for longer than most of us have been alive (I would recommend a review of Oliver Stone's classic "JFK").

We can start with Congress appointing a special prosecutor, which of course bypasses Lynch, but can it avoid being compromised? The Deep State is powerful and compelling, I doubt that any segment of government is beyond its reach.

Frankly, I think we're screwed, and have been throughout modern history. Nothing short of a military coup could provide the thorough and deep change required, and the military itself is largely on the side of this unrestrained power, ie more a part of the problem, than a part of the solution.

We're going to have a President Clinton, she will be corrupt as Hell, and above the law, get used to it.

This is Hillary Clinton in her natural state:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOSVX8zOPkc

Since she will be the Democrat nominee, your only protest vote left is to vote for Mr. Trump. This should be cemented by the part where Mr. Johnson is totally OK with this thing that you find so appalling.

The LP had a chance to not be the sex-and-weed party; that's all they are. Go find the video of Ann Coulter talking to John Stossel and the libertarian students. They scream and yell and boo when she asserts they are fixated on sex and weed, then they only ask questions about sex and weed. There is more to building a functioning civilization.

"Also when you start to understand that your views on Donald Trump are almost wholly a creation of that democratic run media."

So? It's pretty obvious he is not personally racist but he acts the part. Is that really the media's fault or the people voting for him? I mean he is an actor giving the people what they want and using the media to push the message further because he knows how the media works. So to me it isn't the media giving an impression of Donald Trump as a racist blowhard. It's him giving them his blessing to do so because it will get him and the media lots of viewers. Look this dude is a great t.v. salesman that's why he was able to chomp down on that punchable face having Ted Cruz.

I kind of hate how much people blame the media anyways for the narrative presented. It reminds me of how women look at those glossy Vogue covers and somehow someway that influences their self-esteem. As far as I can tell (and what I've read in studies) people form their opinions first and then consume the media that caters to their beliefs so it can be re-enforced.

Doesn't this scandal finally prove to y'all that Hilary is going to win the election?

Johnson isn't the answer, unless you want a candidate who "agree[s] with 73 percent of what Sanders says".

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281765-libertarian-nominee-i-agree-with-most-of-what-sanders

I fear a_random_guy is on target: it is too late to save the republic, but too soon to line the bastards up and shoot them.

As an alternative, one could simply pressure their state legislature to call for an Article V convention of the states. And propose amendments to the Constitution.

Here are Mark Levin's: http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/

but there maybe other good ideas out there. Anything proposed would still have to pass the 3/4ths majority of the states, so really stupid ideas shouldn't sneak thru.

The real solution is to have a better electorate. As long as we encourage foolish, under informed and uninformed people to cast their ballot, we'll get foolish, under informed and uninformed elected representatives.

Initial feelings about the decision to drop the case notwithstanding...

There was one bigger issue here.

IF Comey had gone forward with the prosecution, which he had the right to do...

Then there is no concievable way the election process could have gone forward with the Democratic candidate having a chance in hell.

While I understand the conservative desire to say 'Yay!' to that concept, there is a bigger problem than her going unprosecuted.

And that is that the FBI would have effectively been deciding the presidency.

Imagine how the electoral process would work if any time a candidate did or may have done something illegal, no matter how small (and Miss Alkon you yourself have pointed out that this is true for ALL of us several times a day thanks to the superabundance of laws) law enforcement announced they were bringing charges against the candidate.

Even the mere accusation by law enforcement has an immediate presumption of guilt in the minds of so many Americans that candidates would be destroyed not by issues, not by vote, but by government law enforcement fiat.

What would THAT do for our nation's liberties?

YES it is unfortunate that she won't face charges for her wrong doings.

But it would be WORSE if law enfrocement had such a powerful influence over the electoral process.

There was no good choice here, not at all, and none of us really 'win' when someone gets away with something they shouldn't.

But the worst of all possible scenarios here was that the FBI being involved in influencing the electoral process.

If you don't think it is, imagine if Nixon could have influenced the election of his successor that way? Or imagine a sitting president facing reelection being able to influence things that way.

This presents another question. Why was her IT guy given immunity if there was no criminality going on?

https://twitter.com/ihatethemedia/status/751117017978052608

While I understand the conservative desire to say 'Yay!' to that concept, there is a bigger problem than her going unprosecuted.

And that is that the FBI would have effectively been deciding the presidency.

Not my problem, and it isn't the bigger problem. That's the Democrat's problem. And I'm pretty sure they have a viable candidate in one Bernard Sanders. Sure, he's an old socialist, but then so's Hillary.

But the bigger problem from not prosecuting a criminal is that future presidents will have no restraint on them (unless they happen to be a Republican), and that culture of corruption (and incompetence) will continue to flow down hill.

As I remarked yesterday, in two years Amy will not be able to host an open forum discussing politics. Between the FEC, the FCC and the IRS, she'll be ground up into a fine, pink mist as an example to the rest of the proles do not rock the boat.

Remember that when they put you on a cattle car so you can be sent to the gulag...excuse me, I've been told that the proper term is re-education camp so you learn the proper trans-person pronouns.

Another example, more local to the Angelenos:

https://pjmedia.com/blog/hillary-clinton-too-connected-to-jail/?singlepage=true

I smelled a rat. I inquired further with another detective, who told me that the father of the woman who slapped me was friends with a high-ranking member of the LAPD, who had let it be known that he wanted to see the case dropped. And so it was, albeit with some legalistic rationale conjured up for the paperwork. And unless the woman’s husband pled guilty at arraignment, an exceedingly rare occurrence, it’s safe to assume his case was made to disappear as well.

The couple, you see, were connected, and despite their manifest guilt of the crimes alleged, they were immune to the consequences that would befall people in similar circumstances but whose father or father-in-law was not friends with a high-ranking member of the LAPD. I was advised by a trusted mentor to let it go, for I would be crushed like a bug if I raised a ruckus.

Eventually we'll get into a society were only suckas follow the law. How soon after that do you think it will be normal to bribe LEOs, and that it will be an affront to them if you don't try to bribe them?

The social contract works both ways. And may Cthulhu devour your soul should it breakdown.

"Then there is no concievable way the election process could have gone forward with the Democratic candidate having a chance in hell."

Well, if that were truly the case, the Democrats would simply choose another nominee. They've done the Toricelli trick before. Actually, I read an interesting piece that said that Comey may have actually hurt the Democrats' chances by precluding the convention bail-out strategy. If Hillary had been indicted, and the polls started looking really bad, they would have suspended the rules at the convention and nominated a white-knight candidate, like Biden, whose relatively unknown status would play well against Trump. But Comey's action took away the political cover for that.

I honestly think that the election will come down to how well the Democrats can arrange their logistics for vote fraud in the swing states. This decision by Comey pretty much gives Hillary and the party a free hand; they'll just do it and dare the states to prosecute them. Any states that make noise will back down under threat of losing federal funding. However, they still have to figure out how to actually do it, make it look plausible, and then execute a plan involving a rather large number of geographically scattered people. It could wind up like McNamara trying to run the Vietnam War from his office.

Hmm...

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/238097/

Lamely, I also have no ideas -- not a clue -- on how to fix our system. Any of you got any?

I'm going Green.

http://www.jill2016.com

Moar!

And yet, you admit you will VOTE FOR HER. Don't want to vote trump, fine, vote Johnson or Scooby doo. DOn't send a message, via your vote, to the dewmocrats that she is an acceptable candidate that people will vote for.

Please tell me the Libertarians are running a guy with a bee beard again this year.

Because I will vote President Bee Beard in a heartbeat.

is the embodiment of the old joke, "When he walked into a room, it's as if two people just left."

Somehow, I've never heard that joke before. I like it. (I know who Johnson is, but I've never heard him speak so I didn't know he was that charisma challenged.)

I also like this comment by Sen. Ben Sasse, subsequent to his meeting today with Trump: "Mr. Sasse continues to believe that our country is in a bad place and, with these two candidates, this election remains a dumpster fire."

Amy, in what sane universe could you vote for her over ANYONE?
http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/above-the-law-hillarys-huge-scandal-list-explodes-to-25/

Somehow, I've never heard that joke before. I like it. (I know who Johnson is, but I've never heard him speak so I didn't know he was that charisma challenged.)

Keep in mind that Johnson and his running mate, William Weld, were both re-elected to their respective governorships by wide margins; Weld as a Republican in Massachusetts, a state openly hostile toward most Republicans.

While I still think a Libertarian administration will face an uphill battle to get an agenda through Congress without a built in support system of party compatriots in the legislature, the Libertarian Party is finally showing some sense in the people it nominates. If anyone has a shot at getting both Democrats and Republican voters to consider the Libertarian ticket, these two do, despite both being recycled Republicans.

==============================

Left-leaning Website claims Hillary never put national security in danger and goes on to claim Bush did and the scandal is nothing more than a political strategem by Republicans to derail Clinton's campaign. The site does not deny she sent classified e-mails over her non-secure server, but says the information contained within them was unimportant, so Hillary's a victim of a right-wing witch hunt.

Also, two Republican senators prominent in questioning Hillary sending top secret information over a non-secure server use non-government e-mail servers, so they're hypocrites.

I'll get outraged over Clinton's private email server the day a republican, any republican, gets outraged over Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice's use of private email servers.

I'll get outraged over Clinton's private email server the day a republican, any republican, gets outraged over Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice's use of private email servers. ~ JoJo at July 8, 2016 11:16 AM

Julio, Powell and Rice were operating under a different set of State Department guidelines. The guidelines were changed when Clinton took office to reflect the greater use of e-mail.

Powell did not use a private home-brew server parked in his basement with no security protocols whatsoever. He used a commercially available e-mail provider and only sent a handful of e-mails in his entire tenure in office. The data he sent was classified at a low level, therefore the risk involved was considerably lower than the risk of Clinton's use of a home-brew server and sending of high-level classified data.

From Brietbart:

"The new IG report says the State Department’s rules on the use of unclassified email for official business significantly evolved between 2001 and 2009 and provides charts showing how these rules changed over time. The report also noted that State Department employees first acquired desktop access to the Internet under Powell.

According to the IG report, Powell “installed a laptop computer on a private line” in his State Department office for unclassified email access and he used this laptop to send email via his personal email account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” This was permissible in 2001, but would never be allowed today, since the Secretary’s office is a “Secure Compartmented Information Facility” from which personal electronics are banned. State officials also are now required to use the State system to access the Internet; they are not permitted to set up their own official accounts through commercial services.

Clinton used her unsecured private home-brew server exclusively while Secretary of State. Neither Rice nor Powell used private e-mail services exclusively.

From The Washington Post:

As The Post's Fact Checker previously wrote about Clinton's predecessors as secretary of state:

Rice rarely used e-mails while secretary. Powell did use his personal account on the job, and by his own admission no longer has access to the account he used then. The State Department, NARA, and Powell’s staff are now working to figure out what e-mails need to be, or could be, retrieved.

By the time Clinton took office, federal expectations for archiving electronic records were clearer than they were under Powell’s tenure. That does not absolve Powell for not being able to locate his records a decade later, or for not turning them over to National Archives back then. But it does mean that Clinton was held to a more definitive standard. Moreover, this common defense among her supporters is used to deflect the central issue: that Clinton exclusively used a personal account, and did not provide records until she was requested to, after she left office. That is the most relevant point, so the Democrats earn Three Pinocchios.

Hillary flat out broke the rules, and knew she was doing so at the time. Powell and Rice complied with the rules.

Nice try, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

Julio is an example of the teflon on Hillary. Her supporters don't care that she was reckless with national security, grossly negligent in handling sensitive information, repeated lied to the public, and was arrogant in assuming the rules don't apply to her.

They'll just claim everyone else did it, too, and elect her president.

God save us all. Or, for Amy, Flying Spaghetti Monster save us all.

==============================

Some relevant thoughts from P. J. O'Rourke:

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." ~ P.J. O’Rourke (Give War A Chance)

"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors — psychology, sociology, women's studies — to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view. " ~ P.J. O’Rourke (Give War A Chance)

"Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history, mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." ~ P.J. O’Rourke (A Parliament of Whores)

"I'll get outraged over Clinton's private email server the day a republican, any republican, gets outraged over Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice's use of private email servers."

There is nothing your hero can do that can set aside your eagerness to use the "Two Wrongs" fallacy to justify those actions.

We've reached a point at which the pitch to get a vote is not "I'm the best candidate for the job," but "That other candidate is worse."

The Democrats are going all out to make Donald Trump look like a spoiled brat (and he's doing his level best to help them) in order to mask Hillary's sleaziness and cover it with a cloyingly sweet "For Hillary, it's all about the kids" mantra of niceness.

Is this really what we want in a presidential campaign? In a president?