I see. So if someone disagrees with you they are a sheep? Sound argument, I am completely convinced by this recalcitrance. 

Just going to say from reading through this thread, when it comes to raising peoples attention to political matters which you think are very important, could I just suggest that taking a moment to proof read before clicking submit would really help get the point across. It's just that a post this short shouldn't manage to contain 16+ mistakes in it, to me that just weakens your whole "people should be smarter" suggestion. I don't think you could expect people to take hygiene advice from someone covered in dirt and I think the same applies to political intelligence talk on the internet.

This Whole thread is a bit strange though, basically you want to not give any evidence or sources because you would rather people go and educate themselves and look things up for themselves? Then... why the thread at all, why put any content in it about someones poorly rated TV show being canned, why not just leave it as a open message requesting that people who will vote just go and do some research, rather than trying to make some very poor links in the OP to Hillary being the cause of things happening like bad TV ratings.

See I think you wanted the OP to read something like

But felt the desire to tack on some conspiracy stuff which, of course got peoples attention but just to say why you are wrong in doing so, but drawing away from what I think was your original message (I could be wrong, it's tough to read, I'm sorry.)

Sometimes a decision to do nothing is the right decision. Therefore a dead person will make the right decision more often than some live people. Not naming names.

The issue with Hillary is that her behaviour and her actions in the past casts doubt about her motives of being president. Even if some claim is outlandish, one can still entertain the idea in one's mind.

Meaning Obama has done things but we give him the benefit of the doubt as he is a nice guy and he seems to truly wish to govern for the best interest of the country.

Hillary seems like she is the same but one would think she is far more willing to do anything to get power for selfish reasons then to 'serve the greater good' unlike Obama.

As a result I expect President Hillary even if elected to be a one term president.

It's hilarious how much americans trust their politicians and candidates.

As an affiliate and brother to a mayor in South America I seem to know more about their parties myself. The DNC runs an organization called "Dialogo Interamericano" which oversee the actions of quite a few parties here, both by having insiders of importance and simply convincing with help in election sometimes with money. And that's not even the ugly part.

It was not enough for DI to be closely related and having members in Brazil's most presidential-winning party, PSDB. They also allied with another organization, similar to itself but brazilian-made and even more leftist that acts in all South America, the Foro de São Paulo and made them, represented by PT and our impeached president, the biggest "oppostion" to it's own parties, so they can virtually be in "power" no matter who wins.

Actually compared to other Western Nations, Americans are likely the most distrustful of their Governments.

If you want a people who always think 'fathers knows best' attitude to government is likely Germans and Northern Europeans.

Theres a key difference between those sources and the Infowars source. There is no direct evidence of anything quid pro quo. Its all circumstancial. Tons of people donated to the Clinton Foundation and got nothing out of it too. Now of course there are conflicts of interest (and if Hillary were to become president, her and Bill should also step away from the Clinton Foundation), but again, they get no money from the Clinton Foundation (the talks they do get money from, but thats a bit of a different beast). I believe these conflicts of interest are on a different level of magnitude.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/23/experts-new-clinton-state-dept-emails-show-donor-access-not-favors/89118156/

However, as I've stated before, the nature of Trump's Business involves him personally making a lot of money from foreign sources (without even considering how is domestic decisions could affect his business). That is also a clear conflict of interest. While Trump hasn't been given a chance yet to see how he would act in a political situation, I don't think that should excuse him of the danger that comes with these conflicts of interest.

I think its fair to have disagreements over whos conflicts of interest are more significant as that isn't anything objective. I personally believe donations to charity are less of a conflict than money in the pocket, but thats just me. At the core of the issue however is that both Clinton and Trump have unprecedented, large conflicts of interest, both of which are worrying. 

Nope, I actually get my info from credible sources not from fraud sites like infowars that are run by idiots and snake oil salesman that wear tin foil hats in their spare time.

And your boy Donald Trump is the champion of that.

no- not what i m saying at all-   go back and read my posts-