> intentionally masking the fact that she has no real policies or any sort of platform
What you're suggesting doesn't exist - and is being skirted around by the news - is in fact widely available. Google's right there.
> If the NSA, and other intelligence agencies, had any influence on the election, why wouldn't they do exactly what it would appear they are doing now and get a milquetoast liberal elected to office who will easily capitulate to their demands?
This strikes me as working backwards from a conclusion. If in your view the intelligence community would operate in that way, how would you ever know one way or the other?
One thing we can certainly agree on is that Trump is the real threat. It is pretty damning of our age that "not having a platform"(to your satisfaction) is supposed to be met as a serious criticism, but her opponent's openly unhinged behavior is just "how it is".
What you're suggesting doesn't exist - and is being skirted around by the news - is in fact widely available. Google's right there.
> If the NSA, and other intelligence agencies, had any influence on the election, why wouldn't they do exactly what it would appear they are doing now and get a milquetoast liberal elected to office who will easily capitulate to their demands?
This strikes me as working backwards from a conclusion. If in your view the intelligence community would operate in that way, how would you ever know one way or the other?
One thing we can certainly agree on is that Trump is the real threat. It is pretty damning of our age that "not having a platform"(to your satisfaction) is supposed to be met as a serious criticism, but her opponent's openly unhinged behavior is just "how it is".