Why give evidence? You and everyone else has already shown that when faced with facts you chose to still blindly believe a lie.
This is a terrible statement. You're being very rude for no reason.
Fact: No BigBro442 existed until after her article.
You say this but don't provide evidence. For example, the NPR piece I linked to previously has the developers of the game commenting on the issue as if BigBro442 exists. Why should I trust you over them?
I agree that the earnings gap is due to choices made by women and men. I'm aware the women tend to negotiate less, work less, and retire earlier.
But that's the thing: why do women make these choices? Is it social pressures? E.g., do women make these same choices in other cultures, or because of the social roles that women are caretakers and thus should tend the household, or something else? On the other hand, is it as a result of some intrinsic nature of the physiological differences between men and women? Most importantly, is the status quo (women earning less due to choices) acceptable or not?
Simply saying "that's the way of things" is not acceptable.
I'm not watching the videos.
"Hillary Must Lose" is an overview of the various reasons why he believes that:
I watched it. It was very poorly done.
The DNC rigging the primary.
The process of choosing party nominees has always been shaky and could hardly be called fair at any point in recent history (see summary p. 2-3).
In the video, the narrator discusses an article from Observer.com. (He didn't provide a link to the article, which I find irritating). I immediately was concerned about the objectivity of the outlet upon viewing the front page. Its publisher is Jared Kushner, who Trump's son-in-law and helped Trump's digital campaign tremendously (see here). There is an obvious bias here.
It claims the charter was violated. Firstly, that's not illegal. Secondly, I can't find out what bylaws were exactly violated. I'm sure it has to do with the leaders of the party actively working with Clinton, but a quick search only leads to articles claiming the same thing without citing specific bylaws.
I think the DNC had less to do with favoring the lifelong Democratic Clinton and more to do with disliking the lifelong independent Sanders. A classic "us vs them" sort of thing.
This is just a terrible rhetorical tactic with no substance. It assumes way too much about a simple gesture.
Clinton being friendly to the media
What? This is nonsense.
He is claiming Clinton being polite and friendly to those around her is a negative thing. He provides no reasoning as to why. That's absurd. (Personally, her friendliness made her more likable to me, and I'm still not even going to vote for her!)
He frames the situation wrong, as well. The media benefits from Clinton--she's socially liberal, but otherwise conservative (i.e., a neocon). The media is socially liberal (with few exceptions), but otherwise benefits greatly from increasingly laissez-faire markets in order to generate profits. See: Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. It comes in documentary form, though I have not watched it.
Media conspiracy with Trump
No evidence provided.
Frankly, the media desires profit, and Trump's antics provide viewership and thus profit.
- Funding ISIS: I'm not up-to-par on diplomatic relations, but I fear publicly shaming Saudi Arabia and "doing something" would be incredibly undesirable, considering Saudi Arabia's position in the Middle East and within the oil industry.
- Hating Americans: I don't see evidence of Clinton "hating Americans." Is he denying there is a sizable portion of Trump's base that is bigoted? Trump's policies and statements include: building a wall (xenophobic, racist), banning Muslims from entering the country (Islamphobic, arguably racist if it extends to stereotypical images of Muslims [e.g., Arabs/Persians]), fabricated statistics about blacks (racist), and mountain of sexist statements about women.
- His criticism of Clinton's campaign contributions apply to almost every single candidate to ever run. Why doesn't he include Donald Trump's donors as a comparison? Maybe because it would show there's nothing out of the ordinary?
- He claims Clinton is lying about her position to get money out of politics, but he doesn't provide any evidence other than "she received campaign donations."
- He claims the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from countries like Saudia Arabia is terrible, but doesn't provide any proof, only assumptions and speculation.
- I tried researched links between donations and actions made by Clinton, but found nothing worth a pinch of salt. I did find some interesting info from Politifact that shows the Foundation is boring and statements in the video about places like Arabia are incorrect or misleading. Saudi Arabia didn't provide donations while she was in office, for example.
Look, I'm not voting for Clinton. She will continue similar policies to benefit the 0.1% at the cost of everyone else. But I think Trump is a disgusting human who is by no means qualified to hold any office. And not like third party is any better: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein hold crazy beliefs and promote unworkable and disastrous policies. I would have voted for Sanders, like I did in the primary.
But this hate Clinton gets is unwarranted. She is no worse than Barack Obama, or George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Bush Sr, or Reagan. I have to wonder if the hatred comes from her actions, or from the fact she was a First Lady who had a successful career in politics before and after her husband's presidency? I fear it's the latter.