meaningless. what you mean to say is "something I disagree with"
Second, one of the candidates in this election has previously stated that Assange should be killed.
To me that moves the motivation from founder's grudge to self-defense.
Claim does not hold up.
Is it really biased to expose lies and wrongdoings of a person who called for you to be executed without trial?
Chomsky publishes his research and backs his arguments with innumerable facts, the man is practically a walking encyclopedia of US foreign policy, human rights violations and hypocrisy over the last 100 years.
The difference between an academic and someone with an 'agenda' is that one is interested in the truth and publishes cited analyses, the other is only motivated to impress a particular opinion.
Chomsky is voted by the global community of academics as a valued member of that community. Against that shadow, your assertions are valueless.
It seems highly likely that a Trump administration would give him immunity or a pardon.
Hillary Clinton - President of the United States
In any event, if she's elected, she will have 4 years to drop below 30%, its an easy goal.
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-... [1]http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
It should be impossible for her to win re-election in four years. But it also should have been impossible for her to win this year. All the Republicans had to do was run somebody moderately competent. But...
4 years is a long time in politics. GWB was struggling in early 2001: his "compassionate conservatism" platform had been revealed for the religious fundamentalist welfare-slaughter program it always was, he was under fire for making backroom deals with energy-industry cronies and other serial polluters, was clearly stuttering in public appearances, and half the country thought he was just a rich brat who had cheated his way into the White House.
Then 9/11 happened and GWB became Fearless Leader. For a few years his power had literally no boundaries. He walked into re-election.
Hillary will need a bit of luck, but nothing that cannot be solved with a well-timed spat with North Korea or equivalent.
EDIT: uh, why the downvotes?
As if the usual short-attention-span media and population will ever care about it. It'll be maybe until a couple of months after Clinton's inauguration and no one gives a f... about Trump any more. There's always something more newsworthy than the misery of a failed presidential candidate.
The only exception will be the GOP: they're in for a couple very nasty years, divided between a couple remaining "ordinary" conservatives, the Trump/Tea Party extreme-right-wing movement which surely won't be retreating even if Trump loses, and a society that is more and more moving towards the left end of the political scale - just look at marijuana, homosexual marriage, abortions... society is on a way towards progress and you just can't sell abortions and homosexual marriages to a party consisting of (extreme) Christians and right-wings. No one will vote for them any more.
The GOP will be shattered, the only problem is that there's no one to fill the gap yet.
By their volume and tone in shouting on the Internet, yes, for sure - but in numbers? I seriously doubt that the alt-right is capable of maintaining a nationwide powerful political party.
Trump - If he wins, it's big. If he loses his brand is immensely toxic and no business/brand will want to do business with him. He'll have to go the Glenn Beck route and create his own media network and try to sustain and leverage the alt-right movement.
Alex Jones - Getting a lot more mainstream penetration in my view. He'll be selling a lot more seeds and prepper gear.
Julian Assange - Got a new lease on life after he started fading from relevance, especially after Snowden outscooped anything Wikileaks did.