Pfft, we got the right to vote and then only begrudgingly given access to the workplace above the barest rungs. We should be happy….. :S

1.) Email server where Oliver pointed out rightfully that it was a basic blunder at worst.
2.) Clinton Foundation 'pay for play' that isn't real and has no actual evidence.
3.) Benghazi.
4.) Married to somebody who cheated on them and stayed married…

To address this point by point:
1.) There is no proof of any 'pay for play' at all. That's the whole issue, any 'appearance' is made up by a series of interested actors whether from the left or right, it's the nature of politics.

As a Political Scientist, charisma just doesn't matter. Her policies are all solidly to the left on economic issues, not as far left as Sanders had been, but that's the point of running a primary. Her 'baggage' is where I think the subtle sexism begins to kick in, I'm not accusing you or anybody of it personally…

Actually it's pretty clear that conservative women back whoever is conservative because…le gasp, they're conservative.

I appreciate your .02 cents like anybody else would (take that how you want…).

And you failed, you had a chance to prove your case, you had a chance to be better, and you failed….

. . .So you want me to switch it to JSTOR or you just going to keep blubbering? http://rangevoting.org/Duve…

http://elections.huffington… - Only back to 2009

Ok, Duverger's law. It's well-researched and backed by quite a large body of work. Care to actually rebuttal or is the spittle from your blubbering too much for you to write even something remotely coherent after you were called out?

Bring your evidence that the two parties are somehow keeping third parties down and it's not due to the nature of our single member districts and first past the post races. Go find it, make your case.

Hostile to morons who retort back with no actual evidence to back their lazy statements? Sure. Morons need to be informed sometime…

Sorry, where is your background in Political Theory from? I'm willing to listen to morons bloviate but I like to inform them that they're still morons. If you're too dumb to comprehend the basic facts I put out, you really should shut up and listen.

Which ones? The ones when she wasn't running for President or Senate or those right after when she becomes one of the most beloved and trusted women in America?

That's the problem we're facing, people are too lazy, stupid, or cognitively dissonant to admit it's her sex and long-career that IRRITATE them but doesn't compare to an actual fascist.

You do realize it has nothing to do with either party and in fact has to do with our single member districts and first past the post voting system? I get you're a member of the lay public but can you atleast do the minimum amount of research before spouting off like an imbecile?

Not really, we'll look on this era and really point out how amazingly sexist we are as a society in this time. Not that Clinton doesn't have her flaws but what would be minor issues for a male candidate are blown up to be comparables. When you peel the onion and ask how that happens all you have left is she's a…

I don't suspect any of them are dead or permanently maimed even though the jokes did happen in continuity, which makes me feel they're going more towards Family Guy gags that cost them more of their seriousness as a sitcom.

That's been a running issue, where the main story used to get 17-19 minutes it's now getting about 14-16. The slight decrease due to commercials is noticeable but the couch gags and this end gag also hate up about another minute of storytelling. But for my money it's just the wedged-in B-story that really hollowed…

The fact that they completely let go of any semblance of reality actually made this episode better. The best stories were always based in their elastic sitcom world and every year we get a few good to great episodes and the rest being passable. The hard switch from hand to computer animation pretty much informs me…