Crying Wolf, but Ignoring the Coyote

I remember 2011 quite well. The Republicans had put forth the usual group of spineless, but nice, RINOs as candidates for the presidential election. I supported Herman Cain, who, while not a great candidate, was a darn sight better than any of the other yahoos trying to get nominated for the 2012 presidential election. And then his campaign was devastated by sexual misconduct allegations, allegations which disappeared into thin air the instant Cain dropped his campaign.

On the other hand, men on the opposite side of the political spectrum - Roman Polanski and Bill Clinton - engaged in blatant sexual misconduct and rape, and the left went on the warpath to protect them. Never mind that Polanski was a pedophile - "it wasn't rape-rape". Forget that the power dynamic between Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, and the silencing of numerous others accusing Clinton of assault and sexual impropriety - after all, it's just one "vast right-wing conspiracy" to discredit the Clintons.

The extreme difference in media response, with liberals only getting brought down when it's so blatant that the media can't hide it - and as Polanski proved, sometimes not even then - and Republicans getting lambasted when subjected to any claims of sexual impropriety... claims which go away when the Republicans in question are no longer politically relevant, and which usually happened decades in the past, with statutes of limitations well past...

If this dynamic is to be broken, or at least mitigated, so that you don't automatically cause roughly one half of the country to disbelieve you on sexual assault accusations leveled towards a Republican candidate then a couple of things need to happen:

1. I don't care what Judge Roy Moore does - whether he goes to the Senate or obscurity - you better at least force a settlement out of him. It's too late for a criminal conviction (a point against you BTW), but you need to achieve something other than the destruction of his political career to retain credibility. Otherwise a fair number of people will (rightly) view your future accusations as both not credible, and as political weapons. Of course, it also doesn't help that most of what he's being accused of isn't actually illegal... but some of the things he is accused of were actually illegal, so if there's any truth to the accusations, we'd better see a result.
2. Don't allow ANYONE, to get away with shit just because they share your politics. If you know (not suspect, KNOW) that someone is doing something (as, apparently most of Hollywood did about Weinstein) then f***ing report it to the police. Don't let it fester. Don't hold back until the statute of limitations is past (this one is important, both for credibility, and to ensure that sexual predators get taken out of circulation). Don't say that it wasn't "rape-rape". If you have personal knowledge of sexual misconduct, you have an obligation to do something about it. Of course, if you're the victim, reporting (or not) is your prerogative, and you may very well have some good reasons for not reporting. But Weinstein's actions were well known by far more than just the victims.

A Week and a Half

That's how long it is until election day. I already voted for Johnson. I fully expect several of my family members to give me grief about that choice, but when it comes down to it, even if my vote is the tiebreaker that gives Hillary the nomination, I'll  have no regrets.

Donald Trump is, at best, a populist with no real values of his own, changing to match the winds of popular opinion. At worst, he's a democrat in republican's clothing, seeking to undermine the opposition from within. Either way, he's a shitty choice for president, made semi-palatable only by the fact that the other major option is Hillary Clinton, and the possibility that he's actually changed his colors.

Honestly, If you don't want tyranny, don't vote for either of them. Hillary definitely WILL increase the oppressive scope and power of the federal government. Trump is a gamble, a bet that he's actually become semi-conservative and won't be Hillary with better taste in clothing, or a populist president who introduces us to "Tyranny of the Majority".

While I disagree heavily with some of Johnson's views, he's not a tinpot dictator waiting to happen, nor is he a populist demagogue who'll fuck us over with the "tyranny of the majority". He has a record and established values. They're not perfect, nor are they even optimal, but he's not someone I'm worried about. The other two? I don't gamble, nor am I willing to just give over my freedom.

Incompetent or Dishonest- Pick One

Well, this is an infuriating gem.

Money Quote:

In one note from the documents, the FBI writes that Clinton said she did not know what the marking (C) — used to denote classified information deemed "confidential" — meant. When presented with an email chain using the (C) mark, Clinton "speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," according to the report.

Everyone who handles classified information - that would be most of the military and a fair percentage of the Federal workforce - receives training on how to recognize classified material. The lowliest Seaman/Private/Airman is expected to know how this as part of their job. For Clinton, a woman who is a former First Lady, a former US Senator, and who was, at the time the Secretary of State, this is either inexcusable incompetence or blatantly dishonest. Dealing with classified information correctly is one of the BASIC job requirements of being SECSTATE, and something that she should have known how to do from her time as a Senator, and have gotten exposure to during her time as First Lady. This is roughly equivalent to your electrician not knowing that what DC and AC stand for.
Either she's too incompetent to be a good president, or too dishonest. Pick one, because there is no third option for her.

Clinton Convenience aka Corruption and Poor Security

Hillary Clinton's private email showcases corruption and poor data security.
From the BBC:

Mrs Clinton said no classified material was sent from the private account and said her use of personal email was permitted by the state department.
"I fully complied with every rule," she said.
But she said she had discarded thousands of personal emails, including ones about planning her daughter's wedding and her mother's funeral.

If she'd fully complied with every rule she wouldn't have used a private email for one of the most sensitive jobs in the world. Did you know that not all sensitive information is classified, that snippets of unclassified data can be combined into classified knowledge, and that, depending upon your job, it can be really easy to take classified information for granted and let it out in conversation with close family (this is why, if you have a spouse, your spouse must be eligible for whatever clearance you receive, even though they'll likely never receive a clearance).
In addition, given her previous track record, anything she says has to be taken with a (large) grain of salt. I'll believe that no classified information was sent using her private email, that she really turned over all the relevant emails and that she hasn't already deleted all the incriminating emails when she proves it in a court of law.