Re: 2016 Election
 

Same here.

Buggered if I'm going to stop using Chrome, though.

Re: 2016 Election
 

So am I. There's an open thread on the Site Feedback forum - perhaps you could add your tuppen'orth in there...

http://britishexpats.com/forum/site-...videos-881931/

Re: 2016 Election
 

I see Breitbart is now running the Trump campaign.

As a friend said, he's a great businessman, time for reorganization maybe followed by chapter 11 and liquidation.

Re: 2016 Election
 

No problem for me using Safari.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Not much use if you have a Chromebook.

Re: 2016 Election
 

'

Of Morpeth's 400ish posts on this website, I would have to guess that at least a couple of hundred of them must be some version of "I don't trust Hillary Clinton."

I think that we probably figured that out by about the 50th post. As it turns out, it isn't based upon much, which is what I expected.

As far as browsers go, BE and Firefox aren't getting along so well anymore. This probably has more to do with my Firefox settings than BE.

Re: 2016 Election
 

All False statements involving Hillary Clinton | PolitiFact

Couple of pages to get you going.

Re: 2016 Election
 

HILLARY CLINTON
Says, regarding the presence of classified information in her email, FBI Director James "Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."
— PolitiFact National on Monday, August 1st, 2016

Re: 2016 Election
 

Thanks for the link... I see Politifact has Clinton as way more truthful than her opponent, who has half his statements marked as "false" or "pants on fire". Only 13% of Clinton's statements fall into those categories (12% for Obama, 11% for Sanders).

Really, those who try to equivalence Clinton and Trump in honesty are wearing blinkers.

Re: 2016 Election
 

A lot of this reminds me of guys who abuse their girlfriends and wives by constantly finding fault with them, hoping to browbeat them into submission. The complaints aren't genuine, they're just intended to be manipulative.

I get that Clinton was not under sniper fire. On the other hand, her team had been counseled by the military that they were threatened by sniper fire, so she may have confused what she was told with the actual threat on the ground. It was foolish and wrong, but doesn't rank so highly on the screw-up scale -- it certainly doesn't disqualify someone from being president.

The email server is a non-story. State Department technology sucks, and she came up with her own workaround. Nothing in those emails suggests that she was selling off diplomacy in exchange for donations or having a love triangle with Muslim terrorists, as the Breitbart crowd would have us believe.

So we're back to someone who beats this Clinton-ain't-trustworthy meme like a snare drum for no particularly good reason. In the scheme of things, these are not things to worry about.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I was about to post something similar. In a thread known for tangents and tedious posts, this RWLP/Morpeth interaction is setting a new standard. Morpeth just can't seem to stop typing, and RWLP is famous for doggedly and relentlessly making his point.


As you say - just because people are making decisions based on 'instinct' or 'feeling', doesn't negate their vote. Arguing about 'facts' vs 'feelings' in this particular situation is beside the point.

Re: 2016 Election
 

It is exactly the point. A lot of bad decision making is driven by people who ignore, invent and exaggerate facts.

You just had a Brexit vote that was driven by emotion, and it has done severe damage to the UK. That's what happens when nobody confronts the lack of thought that fuels these political movements.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Huh?

The emotional response was due to facts.

If you want to look at factless assertions look at Remain.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Not to go off on a tangent, but facts?

Where exactly is the 350m quid a week for the NHS?

Re: 2016 Election
 

You mean like Brexit would cause the economy to go tits up? No signs of that? Oh no wait...