Clinton has also got specific on policy though, and it is literally ignoring reality to pretend otherwise. I don’t get why she gets so much more leeway than Sanders, is it really because people think she sucks that bad?

I mean Sanders has put together an actual policing restructuring plan and was reemed in the comment section here because he didn't like a question about his hair but Hillary is like ‘Tell me what to do or else I have no idea’ and it is sculpted into her being some amazing ally (such a great ally she is taking money…

Pretty amazing to me the criticism Sanders has taken over this issue and then a comment like this gets given to Hillary.

Culinary Union hates the guys who own the UFC (who are scumbags) because they own hotels which don't have unionised staff. This is a move that is purely designed to get the UFC owners to unionise their catering staff and nothing to do with fighter well fair.

Well this is nice and healthy.

You still not got over him making you look a bit silly on Twitter then? Good to know, good to know.

I think in this case the accusation is the agencies have got together and said ‘we are paying models £x and no more’. This is illegal as you can’t fix the wages of workers at a low level and then give them no opportunity to take their labour to another company because you are colluding with that other company by…

Sanders has already mentioned repeatedly the sexism Clinton faces, wasting time asking questions about this just shows the reporter was poorly researched and not credible to be honest.

Because the models would lose out on pay in this example as they aren’t being paid their worth but the artificially rigged rate which helps the business but not the models. This example is a workers rights issue and the agencies could be acting totally fairly and are just being investigated as a matter of procedure.…

Anti-competitive practises is UK legal equivalent

Collusion is illegal is virtually every country in the world. Can't work with competitors to set prices or wages at a certain level, if there is any evidence of it can impose huge fines on a business.

It is almost like they are fairly similar in lots of ways...

Yeah they have tried once with Hillary and didn’t get let in to protest. Also none of the others are likely to listen.

She can date me.

I don’t care what you feel like. The majority occupy a privileged status in society, so pretending the law treats everyone equally is a farse.

That's not what I said, burning a church down is illegal but burning a black church down because it is a black church should also have an ADDITIONAL hate crime law.

To have the KKK covered by the same ‘hate laws’ that cover African Americans is utter trash. I am not saying the KKK shouldn’t be covered by regular laws against violence, vandalism etc but hate laws should have a specific meaning.

Well that was my original point that it is an awful law, which you appeared to disagree with? I also pointed out how minorities can be protected without allowing the KKK for e.g to be covered as well. I wasn’t talking about how it works in a US legal context I was talking about how some churches can be covered and not…

Why does religion get that special provision then? So if the KKK had offices you’d be fine with them being protected under hate laws if the goal of harassment was to prevent them from free exercise of speech? That was the reason this law is on the books originally.

Hate laws in the UK cover religious buildings of minorities but not the majority. Its really not difficult concept.